State v. Tarver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Arraignment under Louisiana law is limited in function. In State v. Obey, 193 La. 1075 , 192 So. 722 (1939), the defendant raised a similar issue and complained the record failed to show the defendant’s counsel was present at the arraignment or that his presence was waived by the defendant. The supreme court stated: [ (lUnder the provisions 'Of Article 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a defendant voluntarily enters on the trial without arraignment it shall be considered as if he had pleaded not guilty. There is nothing in the record to show the defendant objected to going to trial. State v. Harper, 172 La. 1067 , 136 So. 54 . Id. at 724. La.Code Crim.P. art. 555 stems from former La.Code Crim.P. art. 256 and provides: Any irregularity in the arraignment, including a failure to read the indictment, is waived if the defendant pleads to the indictment without objecting thereto. A failure to arraign the defendant or the fact that he did not plead, is waived if the defendant enters upon the trial without objecting thereto, and it shall be considered as if he had pleaded not guilty. La.Code Crim.P. art. 516 provides: When a defendant has pleaded at the. arraignment without counsel, counsel subsequently appointed or procured before trial shall be 'given a reasonable time within which to withdraw any motion, plea, or waiver made by the defendant, and to enter any other motion or plea. The comments of La.Code Crim.P. art. 516 indicate this article codified the jurisprudential ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Whatley · 224 So. 3d 1226 - State v. Ceasar

2. “Since the defendant was faced with the possibility of imprisonment he was constitutionally entitled to counsel. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). Accordingly, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 513 mandates that the court inform a defendant of his right to counsel before he pleads in answer to an indictment for an offense punishable by imprisonment. While the defendant may waive the right to counsel, the waiver must be knowing and voluntary and the record must affirmatively reflect that the defendant was advised of the right and elected to waive it. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 514; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). This failure of the trial court to inform defendant of his right to counsel and to secure a valid waiver constitutes reversible error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Whatley