State v. Ehnes’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. “1. Any judge of a court of competent jurisdiction may permit a waiver of counsel to be filed in any criminal case wherein a defendant may receive a jail sentence or confinement if the court first determines that defendant has made a knowledgeable and intelligent waiver of the right to assistance of counsel and the waiver is signed before and witnessed by the judge or clerk of the court, providing further that the waiver contains at least the following information which the defendant has read or which has been read to the defendant before signing thereof: (1) That the defendant has been charged with the offense of . (nature of the charge must be inserted before signing); (2) That the defendant has a right to a trial on the charge and further that the defendant has a right to a trial by a jury; (3) That the maximum possible sentence on the charge is.imprisonment in jail and a fine in the amount of . dollars or by both imprisonment and fine. That the minimum possible sentence is . imprisonment in jail or by a fine in the amount of . dollars or by both such confinement and fine. (4) That the defendant is aware that any recommendations by a prosecuting attorney or other prosecuting official are not binding on the judge and that any such recommendations may or may not be accepted by judge; (5) That if defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty of the charge, the judge is most likely to impose a sentence of confinement; (6) That, if indigent, and unable to employ an attorney, the de”

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

2. “In this case the appellant did not expressly waive counsel. In fact, he said he wanted counsel but refused to employ a lawyer. If it is to be said that the appellant waived counsel, it is a waiver implied by his actions. A fair construction of § 600.051 is that it applies only to express waivers. To construe that section otherwise would create a vehicle by which a procedurally wise defendant could frustrate the administration of justice. Com. v. Wentz, 280 Pa.Super. 427 , 421 A.2d 796 (1980). Of course, a non-indigent defendant who says he wants a lawyer but refuses to employ one should be admonished of the perils of self-representation. State v. Edwards, 592 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1979). He should also be given such advice as is necessary to establish he acts “knowingly and intelligently” within the meaning of Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948). However, this court holds that § 600.051 does not apply to the action of a defendant in refusing to hire a lawyer.”

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