State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is undeniable that the defendant has some mental problems. However, there is conflicting evidence on the question whether these problems would render him incompetent to stand trial. Both expert witnesses who testified indicated that the defendant had comprehension of the roles of the various participants in the trial and understood the crimes with which he was faced, as well as the possible ramifications of conviction of those crimes. As for his ability to help with his defense, the evidence indicated that the defendant was able to respond appropriately in court and cooperate with his attorney to the extent that the defendant refused to be examined by [a State expert] without his attorney present. Although [the de fense expert] testified that the defendant’s alleged paranoia might cause him to fail to cooperate with his defense attorney, this was mere speculation, and diere was no indication that such paranoia surfaced during trial. “The testimony regarding the defendant’s memory retention ability is an area of concern. However, although [the defense expert] testified diat the defendant was woefully deficient in this area, [the State’s expert] testified that he saw no problems with the defendant’s ability to recall recent events. [The State’s expert] also testified that the defendant met many of the factors which would at least indicate the defendant might be malingering. “Based on diese factors, the district court’s determination that the defendant was competent to stand”

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

2. ““[K.S.A. 22-3302] allows the defendant or his counsel to raise the issue and requires a hearing at which time the defendant is allowed to present evidence to establish his incompetence. The fact that the hearing may not afford the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine court-appointed physicians does not detract from his opportunity to demonstrate his incompetence. We conclude that K.S.A. 22-3302 provides a defendant with a procedure which is adequate to protect his right not to be tried while incompetent.” (Emphasis added.) 263 Kan. at 263 .”

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

3. ““because he was preoccupied with delusions and would not be able to testify in a rational manner or assist in his defense . . . [T]he defendant might possibly feel paranoid and believe his attorney to be against him and, as a result, might withhold information from his attorney. Further, . . . the defendant’s borderline mental retardation would malee it difficult for him to understand the courtroom proceedings.” Barnes, 263 Kan. at 264 .”

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