Barnard v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 871 · 1994
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division (2003), Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)
23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McCleskey v. Zant · Sumner v. Mata · Penry v. Lynaugh · Barefoot v. Estelle · Godinez v. Moran
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“our research indicates no reported decision in which a federal circuit court or the Supreme Court has denied relief of a petitioner's competency-to-be-executed claim on grounds of abuse of the writ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Busby v. Davis · Busby v. Davis“[o]n its face, § 848(q)(4)(B) does not condition the appointment of counsel on the substantiality or nonfrivolousness of petitioner's habeas claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Barnard] comprehends the nature, pen-dency, and purpose of his execution. [Barnard] knows that he was found guilty of killing a young boy in a robbery in Galveston County and that his pending execution was because he had been found guilty of that crime. He knew of the date of his scheduled execution and that it would be lethal injection by use of an intravenous injection. [Barnard’s] experts do not establish that he is unaware of the fact of or the reason for his impending execution, but rather that his perception of the reason for his conviction and pending execution is at times distorted by a delusional system in which he attributes anything negative that happens to him to a conspiracy of Asians, Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, and the Mafia (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Panetti v. Dretke
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.