Mottram v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: I think his counsel probably ought to discuss with him the statutory requirement that everything you had must be included and in a later proceeding you would have to show some cause why it wasn’t and could not be included at this time. This is a fairly important decision he is making. It might foreclose— MR. TEVANIAN: For the benefit of Mr. Mottram, that even though he did not intend to be here on post conviction, it is my understanding the Court has ruled this is a post conviction hearing. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MOTTRAM: Well, I didn’t understand that and there is a reason for my withdrawing the other argument. I had two petitions and one is I recently have recovered some files that show the appeal carried to the Supreme Court in 1963 was based on an impartial record and I want to go back before the Court on. That was a Writ of Error Coram Nobis that I last appeared before the Court on, and it wasn’t my understanding this was a post conviction act. This type of Writ of Habeas Corpus — I thought this was for the plain Writ of Habeas Corpus. THE COURT: I think it is very definitely post conviction. You entertain any different view, Brother Tevanian ? MR. TEVANIAN: I do entertain a different view. This is probably omitted from my subsequent Petition. I omitted matters that I felt were proper under a post conviction, and this particular Habeas Corpus I bring, I have brought only attacking the warrant and the arrest and the declaration of being a parole violator and I do ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 330 F. Supp. 51 - Mottram v. Murch

2. “Petitioner’s sixth claim alleges that the jury which found his prior conviction included four jurors who had previously that day sat as members of the jury which had found him guilty. . .. There was no constitutional sanction against the determination of both issues by an entirely same jury. (Ingerson v. State, 146 Me. 412 , 82 A.2d 407 (1951)) and the statutory requirement of separate trials of the two issues came later. P.L. 1961 Chap. 268, sec. 2 [sic, § 1]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sapiel

3. ““ ‘implies something inhumane and barbarous, or, some punishment unknown at common law’ ”,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Farmer