Howard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * The rule is that, ‘If the whole evidence, including that supplied by the presumption of sanity, does :_ot exclude beyond reasonable doubt the hypothesis of insanity, of which some proof is adduced, the accused is entitled to an acquittal of the specific offense charged’, Davis v. United States, supra, 160 U.S. [469] at page 488, 16 S.Ct. [353] at page 358 [ 40 L.Ed. 499 ]; see also, Lee v. United States, supra, [5 Cir.,] 91 F.2d [326] at pages 330-331; Weihoffen, ‘Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense’, pp. 226, 241.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. United States · Brown v. United States

2. ““Now, that [insanity] is a valid defense, under the law of this land, in other words, the law recognizes that if a person is insane that he is not guilty of an offense * * * he would not be charged with his acts which otherwise would constitute an offense if he were sane. “Now, the term ‘insanity’, as used ■ in this defense and as used in this •chárge, means such a perverted and deranged condition of the mental and moral factors as to render a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or unconscious at the time of the nature of the action he has committed or where though conscious of it and able to distinguish between right and wrong and knows that the act is wrong, yet, his will, by which I mean the governing power of his mind has been otherwise than voluntarily so completely destroyed that his actions are not subject to it but are beyond his control.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mullican v. United States · Carter v. United States

3. “. “The district court further erred in its charge in requiring the defendant to adduce proof both that he did not know the difference between right and wrong and that he was unable to refrain from doing wrong. Either condition existing at the time of the commission of the act and as the result of some mental defect or disease was sufficient to make the defendant not guilty. * * * ” 232 F.2d at 276.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Argent v. United States · Timms v. United States