Melton v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · McMann v. Richardson · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Haynes v. Washington
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The guilty pleas entered by petitioner were knowledgeable and voluntary. (b) There was no underlying improper persuasion by either petitioner’s counsel or his grandparents leading up to the guilty pleas. (c) The guilty pleas entered by petitioner resulted from careful study and reflection on his part, and the decision to enter those guilty pleas was his. (d) Although only 16 years of age when the guilty pleas were entered, Bresnahan was fully competent to understand the nature of the proceedings and he was fully competent to make the decision he made. (e) Petitioner’s attorney at the time of entry of the guilty pleas had no disqualifying conflict of interest, and the advice he gave petitioner was honest, sincere advice motivated solely by a desire to further Bresnahan’s best interests. (f) Bresnahan’s attorney furnished competent services to him, and the charge of professional incompetence is totally unsupported by the record. (g) The trial judge was under no duty to order a competency hearing on his own motion, nor did he have any reason to suspect that Bresnahan was not legally sane at the time of the murders or at time of trial. (h) Defense counsel did not fail to pursue an available defense when, (a) his client stated in writing and after long consideration that he wanted to withdraw the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and enter a plea of guilty, (b) three psychiatrists had reported that Bresnahan was legally sane, (c) there was no substantial basis on which ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““No less than a showing of ‘bad faith, sham, or farcical representation’ will suffice to support a claim of inadequate representation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.