Hazel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If it be assumed that Dr. Ward’s sincere statement there was no disagreement among the staff as to Hazel’s sanity, was incorrect and had the same effect as a material misstatement knowingly made, or left uncorrected, nevertheless, because the assumed mistake was not prejudicial, there resulted neither a denial of due process nor any other ground for relief under coram nobis (one of the remedies for which the Post Conviction statute, Code (1960 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, Sec. 645A, is a substitute) as there might otherwise have been, (cases omitted) “Dr. Morganstern in his memorandum to his superior on August 14, 1959, complaining that he was not consulted nor told of the change in diagnosis, said he was still of the opinion Hazel ‘at the time of the conference was mentally ill * * He has not examined Hazel, reviewed the Crownsville files nor consulted anyone about Hazel since July 15, 1959. He has never said to anyone, or ever testified, that he thinks the ultimate diagnosis of sanity was wrong. Dr. Morganstern’s complaint was that he had not been consulted further before Hazel was sent to court for trial, not that an insane man had been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. We cannot and do not believe Dr. Morganstern would have remained silent, save for a complaint as to departmental procedure or protocol, and never, to this day, have said Doctors Ward, Ramirez, Phillips and Guttmacher had reached a wrong- result, if he believed an insane man was about to be executed.” 226 Md”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hazel v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

2. ““The present contentions seem to be rather belated efforts to review and revive matters which were known or easily discoverable by ordinary diligence before or at the criminal trial. The newly discovered evidence principle is therefore not applicable. By the time Dr. Ward’s (who was the third medical expert) testimony as to sanity was almost concluded, it should have been evident to counsel that petitioner had a lost cause on the issue of insanity unless a way could be found to neutralize or dilute the positive statements of the doctors which were unaffected by forceful and intelligent cross examination. Resourcefulness would suggest ascertaining the reason for the difference in conclusions between July 17th and August 5th with respect to all of those who participated in the staff meeting. There was a lead in the testimony of Dr. Ward about a ‘degree of disagreement’ which was not seized upon and thoroughly developed and explored.” 226 Md. at 271 , 173 A.2d at 195 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hazel v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

3. ““(1) That the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the trial was dependent upon findings and a report of the Department of Mental Hygiene, pursuant to Article 59, section 11 of the Code, as to the sanity of the petitioner, that such report was not furnished and if it had been the petitioner would not have been subjected to trial. (2) That the testimony of Dr. Ward, Superintendent of Crownsville State Hospital, ‘was incorrect and false’ and if the actual facts had been produced in court, the petitioner would not have been subjected to trial. (3) That the court was misled by state oificials, Drs. Ward and Ramirez, ‘who knowingly allowed the court to exclude from its consideration information peculiarly within their (the officials) knowledge, which would have resulted in the defendant petitioner not coming to trial on August 7, 1959, or resulted in a finding of insanity had he come to trial.” 226 Md. at 261 , 173 A.2d at 190 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hazel v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary