Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 sentences2016(See, e.g., Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“It is undeniable that in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts.”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [“It is candidly recognized that a defendant who represents himself virtually never improves his situation or achieves a better result than would trained counsel”]; Martinez v. Court of Appeal (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an 2016(See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 597 , 120 S.Ct. 684 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] [“a defendant who represents himself virtually | 4 | 5 |
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Districtgreen2 sentences2016(See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 597 , 120 S.Ct. 684 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] [“a defendant who represents himself virtually 2016(See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 597 , 120 S.Ct. 684 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] [“a defendant who represents himself virtually | 4 | 4 |
People v. Riversgreen2 sentences2016(See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 597 , 120 S.Ct. 684 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] [“a defendant who represents himself virtually 2016(See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 145 L.Ed.2d 597 , 120 S.Ct. 684 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Rivers (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] [“a defendant who represents himself virtually | 3 | 3 |
People v. Blairred1 sentence2014(See Martinez v. Court of App. of 14 Cal. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 161 [ 120 S.Ct. 684 , 145 L.Ed.2d 597 ] [“[o]ur experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney’”]; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834 [“in most criminal prosecutions defendants could better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts”]; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 740 [“‘the right of self-representation is a right that when exercised usually increases the likelihood | 1 | 1 |
Godinez v. Morangreen1 sentence2005(See Martinez, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 161 [“Our experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by *740 an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ” (fn. omitted)]; see also id. at p. 161, fn. 9 [acknowledging the view of some observers that allowing certain defendants to represent themselves at trial is akin to allowing them to waive their right to a fair trial]; see also id. at pp. 164-165 (conc. opn. of Breyer, J.); McKaskle v. Wiggins, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 177, fn. 8 [“the right of self-representation is a right that | 1 | 1 |
McKaskle v. Wigginsgreen1 sentence2005(See Martinez, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 161 [“Our experience has taught us that ‘a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by *740 an experienced criminal defense attorney’ ” (fn. omitted)]; see also id. at p. 161, fn. 9 [acknowledging the view of some observers that allowing certain defendants to represent themselves at trial is akin to allowing them to waive their right to a fair trial]; see also id. at pp. 164-165 (conc. opn. of Breyer, J.); McKaskle v. Wiggins, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 177, fn. 8 [“the right of self-representation is a right that | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bloom
green
1 sentence2021For example, when the facts that support a certain potential line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether.” (Id. at p. 691.) The Strickland court’s observations are even more apt in a case, such as this, where the defendant is an experienced criminal defense attorney who himself conducted the pretrial investigation and provided that information to the attorneys retained to represent him. 58 In his opening brief, Dorton criticizes the trial court for citing People | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.