Mounts v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis
326 F.2d 186 · 1963
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Boles (1964), United States of America Ex Rel. Salvatore D'ambrosio, Relator-Appellant v. Hon. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New York (1965)
12 federal appellate · 5 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 Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Chandler v. Warden Fretag · James Graham v. State of West Virginia · In re Disbarment of Gately
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.
“To satisfy the minimum requirements of fundamental fairness under the circumstances the prisoner should have been told of his right to admit, or to deny, or remain silent and have the issue of his identity submitted to a jury. Furthermore, he should have been told that the consequences of his admissions would be a mandatory life sentence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harper v. Boles · Louden v. Boles“At the arraignment for sentencing the petitioner appeared with his counsel, who had represented him at the trial. The court, for the first time, informed the petitioner of the filing of the petition and ordered the petitioner to “Pay attention, John Fink Mounts”. Thereafter, and without any explanation of the purposes of the petition, of the effect of the petitioner’s affirmative answers to the questions about to be asked, or of his right to stand mute (which, under the statute, would entitle him to a jury trial on the issues raised by the petition), the court read the information. The information gave the section of the statute invoked, the dates of the previous convictions, the sentences and the places of confinement, but did not further enlighten the petitioner. After reading the petition, as a whole, the court then commanded “John Mounts, you may stand up.” The court then reread each of the paragraphs having to do with the prior convictions, and asked the petitioner if he was the same person convicted of the respective offenses referred to. The petitioner made affirmative answers to each of " the four questions. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harper v. Boles“We are, of course, bound by the West Virginia Court's interpretation of the statute, but we must hold that notwithstanding the fact that the procedure below complied with the provisions of the statute it did not comply with the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boles
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.