United States v. Duhon’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4242 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 18 U.S.C. § 4247
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o be competent, a defendant must be able to (1) consult with the lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, (2) otherwise assist in the defense, (3) have a rational understanding of the criminal proceedings and (4) have a factual understanding of the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.