Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 994 P2D 947 - Bell v. State

Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Cronic · Wheat v. United States · Morris v. Slappy · Drew v. United States

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

  1. “While a trial court has the power in its discretion to appoint substitute counsel, its refusal to do so is not error unless an abuse of discretion is shown. A factual showing of good cause for the appointment of substitute counsel is essential to the demonstration of an abuse of discretion, and good cause is to be found in incompetence, commitment to a position or an interest which would conflict with the furnishing of an effective defense to the accused, or other good reason to conclude that appointed counsel is unable to furnish effective assistance.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The first is whether the evidence relating to the similar offenses charged would be admissible in a separate trial of each offense. If the evidence would be admissible, there is no prejudice. If the evidence would not be admissible in separate trials, the trial court should then determine whether the evidence of each crime is simple and distinct. Stated differently, the second consideration is whether the evidence relating to the separate offenses would be so complicated that the jury could not reasonably be expected to separate them and evaluate the evidence properly and individually on each separate charge.”
    2 later decisions 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.