115 Wash. 2d 457 - State v. Pawlyk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity and is examined under RCW 10.77 has a statutory right to "refuse to answer any question if he ... believes his ... answers may tend to incriminate him ... or form links leading to evidence of an incriminating nature." The statutory privilege against self-incrimination is strictly construed and applies only to psychiatric evaluations of a defendant conducted under RCW 10.77, not in diminished capacity cases.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Hutchinson · State v. Carneh

2. “In State v. Pawlyk, 115 Wash.2d 457, 467 , 800 P.2d 338 (1990), we clarified our prior holding and stated the Hutchinson I reference to RCW 10.77.020(4) ... should not be read as implying that the statutory privilege against self-incrimination applies to any and all psychiatric evaluations of a Defendant regardless of the circumstances; any such reading plainly would not comport with the express terms of RCW 10.77.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In Re Personal Restraint of Hutchinson · State v. Hutchinson

3. “that the defense psychiatrist’s examination of defendant is likely to be more accurate on the issue of insanity than that of the prosecution's. The defense psychiatrist will generally examine defendant earlier than the prosecution. The examination will thus be closer to the time of the offense, when defendant’s recollections are clearer and there is less likelihood that defendant’s mental condition has changed. Moreover, a defendant might benefit by undergoing several psychiatric examinations, examining reports of psychiatrists unfavorable to his insanity defense, and tailoring his responses in subsequent examinations more favorably to his defense. Defendant is also likely to be more cooperative with his own psychiatrist and give a more accurate impression of his mental condition. Saltzburg argues, and we agree, that for these reasons all available evidence of defendant's mental condition should be put before the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District