Carey v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree also that there was nothing in the evidence before him to show that either of the petitioners was denied due process, unless the failure to appoint counsel for them amounted of itself to such denial. On this question, the members of the court, after carefully studying the decisions of the Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 , 53 S. Ct. 55 , 77 L. Ed. 158 , 84 A. L. R. 527; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L. Ed. 1461 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 327 , 58 S. Ct. 149 , 82 L. Ed. 288 ; Lisenba v. California, ( 314 U. S. 219 ), 62 St. Ct. 280, 86 L. Ed. (179), decided December 8, 1941; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275 , 61 S. Ct. 574 , 85 L. Ed. 830 , and a number of other recent decisions are divided and in doubt. One member of the court is of the opinion that the mere failure of the State court, upon request, to appoint counsel for an indigent prisoner does not amount to a denial of due process in the absence of other circumstances showing that such appointment is necessary to a fair trial, such as the youth and inexperience of the prisoner or complicated nature of the charge, the inflamed state of the public mind, acts of oppression on the part of public officers, etc., and that if such failure to appoint counsel should be held to be a denial of due process, it is not such a denial as would destroy the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the trial of the case. Another member of the court is of the view that such fai”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coates v. State

2. ““We agree with the judge below that, in view of the contention of petitioners that they had been denied due process and had exhausted their remedies in the courts of the State of Maryland, it was proper for him to issue the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of their imprisonment. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 327 , 35 S.Ct. 582 , 59 L.Ed. 969 ; Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 , 43 S.Ct. 265 , 67 L.Ed. 543 ; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 , 98 A.L.R. 406 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 47 F. Supp. 362 - United States ex rel. Jackson v. Brady