147 F. Supp. 2d 791 - Gonzalez v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the Second Circuit held that failure to sua sponte appoint an interpreter for an indigent twenty-three year old Puerto Rican immigrant charged with murder who neither spoke nor understood any English violated the petitioner’s right of confrontation, right to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, right to be meaningfully present at his own trial, and right to intelligently participate in his own defense, citing United States Supreme Court precedent in all of these areas. * * * The Second Circuit also found support for its ruling in United States Supreme Court competency law, e.g., Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 384 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). The court found that an inability to speak and understand English rendered the defendant as unable to participate intelligently in his own defense as any mental disorder, yet this language-based ‘disability’ was readily ‘curable’ through provision of an interpreter.” Gonzalez v. Phillips (E.D.Mich.2001), 147 F.Supp.2d 791, 799-800 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 157 Ohio App. 3d 578 - State v. Razo

2. “I. Was due process violated where the court precluded cross-examination of a key witness as to bias? II. Was the court’s failure to provide Petitioner with an interpreter at trial, where Petitioner did not speak or understand English, reversible error? III. Was defense counsel ineffective in failing to move for appointment of an interpreter for Petitioner at trial, in fading to bring out the entire bargain for the accomplices’ testimony and the fact that they all lied about it, and in failing to utilize Petitioner’s testimony where there was no other support for his defense?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 195 F. Supp. 2d 893 - Gonzalez v. Phillips