State v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Johnson v. State (2005), 969 So. 2d 1233 - State v. Shaw (2007)
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Morrissey v. Brewer · Faretta v. California · Goldberg v. Kelly
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) absent extraordinary circumstances that should alert the trial court to a conflict between attorney and client, the court should not inquire into a criminal defendant’s right to testify. The court should assume, that a criminal defendant, by not ‘attempting to take the stand,’ has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right; (2) the court must consider whether the petitioner has waived his right to testify.... [The defendant can only] rebut that presumption ... by showing that his attorney caused him to forego his right to testify [ (a) by alleging specific facts, including an affidavit by the defendant’s trial counsel] from which the court could reasonably find that trial counsel ‘told [the defendant] that he was legally forbidden to testify or in some similar way compelled him to remain silent ... ’ [(b) by demonstrating from the record] that those ‘specific factual allegations would be credible[.]’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In Nix , an ineffective assistance of counsel case, the issue was whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when his attorney refused to cooperate after the defendant made known his intention to offer perjured testimony. Defense counsel testified: [W]e could not allow him to [testify falsely] because that would be perjury, and as officers of the court we would be suborning perjury if we allowed him to do it ... I advised him that if he did do that it would be my duty to advise the court of what he was doing and that I felt he was committing perjury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“BY THE COURT: ... Mr. Elliott, let me have you step up. As to your right — you don’t have to testify. But I do want to place on the record if you are freely waiving that right. Mr. Elliott, do you understand, sir, you have the right to testify on your own behalf, sir? BY DEFENDANT ELLIOTT: Yes, ma’am. BY THE COURT: And at this time are you waiving the right to testify? BY DEFENDANT ELLIOTT: Yes, ma’am. BY THE COURT: All right. So that the record is clear. And have either of you in any way been forced or coerced or threatened into waiving this right? BY DEFENDANT ELLIOTT: No, ma’am.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.