State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably State v. Lankford (1989), State v. Pierce (1984)
26 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Agurs · Mempa v. Rhay
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.
“[I]n the absence of a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel, the district court may not proceed with the sentencing hearing when the defendant is not represented by counsel without some evidence or finding that the defendant has discharged his counsel in order to delay or hinder the judicial process. The record here does not support such a conclusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lindsay · State v. Ivey““ ‘. . . [I]f the subject matter of such a request is material, or indeed if a substantial basis for claiming materiality exists, it is reasonable to require the prosecutor to respond either by furnishing the information or by submitting the problem to the trial judge. When the prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if ever, excusable.’ 427 U.S. at 106 , 96 S.Ct. at 2399.” 98 Idaho at 212-13, 560 P.2d at 883-84.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crawford“The record does disclose that before trial Brown had been displeased with his court appointed counsel but had been unable to retain other counsel. After trial he asked to have his appointed counsel discharged and to retain other counsel. Under these circumstances he should have been granted a reasonable continuance to allow for new counsel to be retained and to be present at the sentencing hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carman
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.