Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`The test for determining whether a strike rises to the level of a challenge for cause is "whether a juror can set aside their opinions and try the case fairly and impartially, according to the law and evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Tomlin v. State · Bohannon v. State

2. ““ ‘ “An indigent defendant who cannot afford to retain an attorney has an absolute right to have counsel appointed by the Court in all criminal proceedings in which representation by counsel is constitutionally required. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Strickland v. State, 280 Ala. 31 , 189 So.2d 771 (1965); U.S. Const, amend. V and XIV; Art. I, Ala. Const.1901, § 6; Ala.Code 1975, § 15-12-21; Ala. R.Crim. P. 6.1. While an indigent defendant may have the right to be represented by counsel, he has no absolute right to be represented by any particular counsel or by counsel of his choice. Briggs v. State, 549 So.2d 155 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). The essential aim of the Sixth Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate, not counsel preferred by the defendant. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a defendant a meaningful relationship, rapport, or even confidence in court-appointed counsel. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 , 109 S.Ct. 1758 , 104 L.Ed.2d 194 (1989).” ‘“Snell v. State, 723 So.2d 105, 107 (Ala.Crim.App.1998).’ “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he decision whether to remove an appointed counsel and appoint another counsel for defendant is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Crawford v. State, 479 So.2d 1349, 1355 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). See also, Tudhope v. St”

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

3. “"In Illinois v. Allen, [ 397 U.S. 337, 346-47 (1970)], the trial judge had removed the defendant from the courtroom after repeated warnings concerning his unruly conduct. The United States Supreme Court wrote: "` . . . [O]ur courts, palladiums of liberty as they are, cannot be treated disrespectfully with impunity. Nor can the accused be permitted by his disruptive conduct indefinitely to avoid being tried on the charges brought against him. It would degrade our country and our judicial system to permit our courts to be bullied, insulted, and humiliated and the orderly progress thwarted and obstructed by defendants brought before them and charged with crimes. . . . Being manned by humans, the Courts are not perfect and are bound to make some errors. But, if our courts are to remain what the Founders intended, the citadels of justice, their proceedings cannot and must not be infected with the sort of scurrilous, abusive language and conduct paraded before the . . . trial judge in this case.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 982 So. 2d 565 - Brown v. State