{
  "id": 1891391,
  "name": "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Remeta v. State",
  "decision_date": "1988-12-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 87-214",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "297 Ark. 391"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "761 S.W.2d 606"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872659,
        1872627
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0198-02",
        "/ark/291/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717627
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06926369066304638
    },
    "sha256": "8c4a06c84e8b3402c36a03bca4028ab59722ba1657ee851eb41c4e0e2a522422",
    "simhash": "1:fb2e21a9532e1308",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., would grant."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant, Daniel Eugene Remeta, moves to be appointed co-counsel in his appeal and to be allowed to argue orally in person. Those motions are denied. We deny as well his motion to supplement the brief to be filed by his attorney. However, we note that if, after his attorney\u2019s brief is filed, Remeta files a motion demonstrating that his attorney\u2019s brief is inadequate he may be permitted to file a supplemental brief, pro se. See Wade v. State, 288 Ark. 94, 702 S.W.2d 28 (1986).\nWe also deny, without prejudice, Remeta\u2019s request to be allowed additional pages in the argument portion of his brief. See Pemberton v. State, 291 Ark. 198, 723 S.W.2d 372 (1987).\nThe brief to be filed by Remeta\u2019s attorney is due in sixty days.\nPurtle, J., would grant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. It is fundamental that a person has the right to represent himself in any legal proceeding. It is also fundamental that any attorney may employ or associate another attorney to assist him or handle the case. This court, usually by way of per curiam, frequently requires pro se petitioners to comply with the same standards which apply to lawyers. If we are going to hold inmates to the same standard of performance as practicing attorneys, it seems to me that we are bound to allow them the same privileges in trying their own case \u2014 including the opportunity to argue their own case before the court.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Randolph Shock, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jack Gillean, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-214\n761 S.W.2d 606\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 19, 1988\nJ. Randolph Shock, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jack Gillean, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 428
}