Brizendine v. Swenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Dr. G. S. Waraich, Acting Superintendent of State Hospital No. 2 at St. Joseph, wrote a letter to Judge Hall, quoted in part on page 900 of 391 S.W.2d. The transcript does not show, however, that any hearing of any sort was held at which that letter was ever introduced in evidence; at which Dr. Waraich was called as a witness; or at which it was ever judicially determined that petitioner was competent to stand trial. The transcript does not show that petitioner was ever afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Waraich or to offer evidence of his own, as was his right, on request, under V.A.M.S. § 552.020, 2. The transcript does not show whether petitioner contested the finding or that he was ever given an opportunity so to do. * * * All the transcript shows is that two days after Judge Hall signed his order on February 4, 1964, the case was continued for the term and until March 9, 1964, the first day of the March 1964 Term; was on that day reset for trial on March 23, 1964; and that the trial in fact commenced before Judge Jensen on March 30, 1964, without any notice being made of Judge Hall’s order for examination for competency to stand trial. Although counsel for the petitioner later introduced Dr. Waraich’s letter in evidence (Tr. 120), neither he nor anyone else apparently knew or remembered before the trial commenced that Judge Hall had ever sustained a defense motion for mental examination; that a report had been made by the examining doctor; or that no hearing o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 302 F. Supp. 1011 - Brizendine v. Swenson

2. “Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 at 378 , 86 S.Ct. 836, at 838 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), reiterated the well established rule that “the conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process, Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961 , 76 S.Ct. 440 , 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956), and that state procedures must be adequate to protect that right.” That case also held that “[t]he [trial] court’s failure to make such inquiry * * * deprived Robinson of his constitutional right to a fair trial” ( 383 U.S. at 385 , 86 S.Ct. at 842 ) and that the failure of Illinois to give an accused “an adequate hearing on his competence to stand trial” required the federal court to issue its writ of habeas corpus unless the accused was granted a new trial within a reasonable period of time ( 383 U.S. at 386 , 86 S.Ct. at 842 ). [ 261 F.Supp. at 74-75 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 302 F. Supp. 1011 - Brizendine v. Swenson

3. “without prejudice to file a motion to vacate and set aside his sentence pursuant to Missouri Rule 27.26.”

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