Orazio v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 1508 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Mayo v. Henderson (1994), United States v. Teague (1992)
21 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Petitioner’s request to represent himself was denied. By failing to repeat his desire to represent himself, petitioner did not vacillate on the issue. See Chapman [v. United States ], 553 F.2d 886 at 893 n. 12 [ (5th Cir.1977) ]. He did not abandon his initial request, either. Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir.1982). Orazio is unlike the petitioner in Brown, who, before the court even denied his motion for self-representation, asked counsel to represent him. Orazio acquiesced in being represented by counsel because his request to defend himself had already been denied. To avoid a waiver of a previously-invoked right to self-representation, a defendant is not required continually to renew a request once it is conclusively denied or to “make fruitless motions or fore-go cooperation with defense counsel in order to preserve the issue on appeal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A defendant need not be technically competent in the law to act in his or her own defense but must be competent to make the choice to proceed pro se.”
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.