11 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peter R. Fitzpatrick v. Louie L. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences2018The ultimate test is not the trial court's express advice but rather the defendant's understanding." Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright , 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 2018The ultimate test is not the trial court's express advice but rather the defendant's understanding." Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright , 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). | 1 | 9 |
Tomlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The ultimate test is not the trial court’s express advice but rather the defendant’s understanding.” ’ Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124, 128 (Ala.1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)). “ ‘Whether a defendant who chooses to represent himself has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel can be indicated by the record or by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver.’ ” 3 Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406, 409 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Coughlin, 842 So.2d at 35 , citing Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 ). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The ultimate test is not the trial court’s express advice but rather the defendant’s understanding.” ’ Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124, 128 (Ala.1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)). “ ‘Whether a defendant who chooses to represent himself has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel can be indicated by the record or by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver.’ ” 3 Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406, 409 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Coughlin, 842 So.2d at 35 , citing Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKaskle v. Wiggins
green
2 sentences1987In McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court, in affirming the defendant's conviction, held that while in that case counsel’s interference in the defendant’s pro se defense was not great enough to threaten his Faretta rights, if it had been, reversal would have been required. 1987In McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court, in affirming the defendant's conviction, held that while in that case counsel’s interference in the defendant’s pro se defense was not great enough to threaten his Faretta rights, if it had been, reversal would have been required. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2014Regardless of the mandatory language of Rule 6.1, “the Supreme Court[, in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975),] does not require a specific colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant. ‘The case law reflects that, while a waiver hearing expressly addressing the disadvantage of a pro se defense is much to be preferred, it is not absolutely necessary. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences2008The ultimate test is not the trial court’s express advice but rather the defendant’s understanding.” ’ Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124, 128 (Ala.1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)). “ ‘Whether a defendant who chooses to represent himself has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel can be indicated by the record or by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver.’ ” 3 Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406, 409 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Coughlin, 842 So.2d at 35 , citing Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 ). 2008The ultimate test is not the trial court’s express advice but rather the defendant’s understanding.” ’ Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124, 128 (Ala.1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)). “ ‘Whether a defendant who chooses to represent himself has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel can be indicated by the record or by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver.’ ” 3 Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406, 409 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Coughlin, 842 So.2d at 35 , citing Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Coughlin v. State
green
1 sentence2008The ultimate test is not the trial court’s express advice but rather the defendant’s understanding.” ’ Tomlin v. State, 601 So.2d 124, 128 (Ala.1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)). “ ‘Whether a defendant who chooses to represent himself has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel can be indicated by the record or by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver.’ ” 3 Baker v. State, 933 So.2d 406, 409 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Coughlin, 842 So.2d at 35 , citing Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.