Nathan Thomas v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.2d 934 · 1963
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2005 · most notably Pate v. Robinson (1966), Drope v. Missouri (1975)
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. Allen · Darr v. Burford · Leland v. Oregon · Heflin v. United States · McNally v. Hill
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What emerges from this humane legislation is the assurance by the Commonwealth that one whose mental capacity to cope with the exigencies of a trial, is in doubt shall not be put in jeopardy without a preliminary inquiry into his present mental condition. It is this right to a judicial determination of fitness to stand trial that Thomas allegedly asserted * * *. Since due process [14th Amendment], entitled him to have the matter thoroughly ‘canvassed’ and the Commonwealth provided the means for it, the federal court is obliged to scrutinize the procedure by which his claim was rejected.” .(Emphasis supplied.) (313 F.2d p. 939)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In clear recognition of its constitutional obligation, Virginia expressly authorizes a hearing on the question whether ‘the person to be tried is in such a mental condition that his confinement in a hospital for the insane, or colony for the feeble-minded, for proper care and observation is necessary to attain the ends of justice.’ Since a defendant cannot always be expected to demand an examination for himself, the judge may invoke the procedure sua sponte.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Timmons v. Peyton““Also, if a man in his sound memory commits a capital offense, and before arraignment for it, he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it; because he is not able to plead to it with the advice and caution that he ought. And if, after he has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried: for how can he make his own defense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.