12 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2011In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself in a criminal case, explaining: “When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. 2011In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself in a criminal case, explaining: “When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. | 1 | 12 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences2008For this reason, in order to represent himself, the accused must ‘knowingly and intelligently’ forgo those relinquished benefits.” 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). 2008For this reason, in order to represent himself, the accused must ‘knowingly and intelligently’ forgo those relinquished benefits.” 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). | 3 | 1987–2008 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011As this Court explained in DeFries v. State, 597 So.2d 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1992): “ ‘When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.’ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ‘Although a defendant may not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to represent himself, Faretta v. California, [citation omitted [in De-Fries ]], “neither is he entitled to special treatment or benefits not afforded to defendants with counsel.” ’ State v 2011As this Court explained in DeFries v. State, 597 So.2d 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1992): “ ‘When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.’ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ‘Although a defendant may not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to represent himself, Faretta v. California, [citation omitted [in De-Fries ]], “neither is he entitled to special treatment or benefits not afforded to defendants with counsel.” ’ State v | 2 | 1992–2011 |
DeFries v. State
green
1 sentence2011As this Court explained in DeFries v. State, 597 So.2d 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1992): “ ‘When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.’ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ‘Although a defendant may not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to represent himself, Faretta v. California, [citation omitted [in De-Fries ]], “neither is he entitled to special treatment or benefits not afforded to defendants with counsel.” ’ State v | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Addicks
green
2 sentences2011As this Court explained in DeFries v. State, 597 So.2d 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1992): “ ‘When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.’ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ‘Although a defendant may not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to represent himself, Faretta v. California, [citation omitted [in De-Fries ]], “neither is he entitled to special treatment or benefits not afforded to defendants with counsel.” ’ State v 2011As this Court explained in DeFries v. State, 597 So.2d 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1992): “ ‘When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.’ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ‘Although a defendant may not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to represent himself, Faretta v. California, [citation omitted [in De-Fries ]], “neither is he entitled to special treatment or benefits not afforded to defendants with counsel.” ’ State v | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Zeigler v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011Cf. Zeigler v. State, 432 So.2d 542 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) (pro se defendant generally not entitled to special consideration on appeal). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.