Meador v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.2d 935 · 1964
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably United States v. Barnard (1973), Chavez v. United States (1981)
55 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Killian v. United States · Ogden v. United States · Gunther v. United States · Krupnick v. United States
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““2. Should the word ‘Insane’ be deleted, to limit the examination exclusively to the issue of competence? Now, that is under 4244. DB. SETTLE [Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri] : My answer to this is, ‘Yes.’ I think the fact that it says, ‘may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent,’ confuses the issue, because of the connotation of ‘insane,’ as relating to responsibility. When you tie that into the last two sentences of this section, about which there is a great deal of confusion, it seems to me it would be much clearer if 4244 dealt only with the problem of competency, ‘is he so sick as to be incompetent.’ JUDGE BECKEB [W.D.Mo.] : I see no legal objection to that. That is the issue anyway. JUDGE GIBSON [W.D.Mo.]: That is the issue under 4244. DB. SETTLE: But when you have that word ‘insane’ in there, another issue is injected. * * * # * JUDGE OLIVEB [W.D.Mo.]: * * * here is another example of where the statutes as presently drafted are being utilized by district judges, or attempts are being made, and the district judges and the Medical Center are expressing opinions which are really not authorized within the scope of 4244 as it now reads. Many people, judges and lawyers alike, are trying to take 4244 and to have the people at the Medical Center give testimony on the question of responsibility at the time of the offense. The issue and sole authorized inquiry under 4244 is very, very simple. * * * I doubt most seriously wh”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence * * * the United States Attorney lias reasonable cause to believe that a person charged with an offense against the United States may be presently * * * so mentally incompetent as to be unable * * * properly to assist in his own defense, he shall file a motion for a judicial determination of such mental competency of the accused, setting forth the ground for such belief with the trial court in which proceedings are pending. Upon such a motion or upon a similar motion in behalf of the accused, or upon its own motion, the court shall cause the accused * * * to be examined as to his mental condition by at least one qualified psychiatrist, who shall report to the court. * * * If the report of the psychiatrist indicates a state of * * * such mental incompetency in the accused, the court shall hold a hearing, upon due notice, at which evidence as to the mental condition of the accused may be submitted, including that of the reporting psychiatrist, and make a finding with respect thereto. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court in the case now before us thus proceeded on the theory that it is not necessary to call for a psychiatric examination before denying a section 4244 motion if the court determines, on the basis of materials such as those described above, that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the accused is mentally incompetent to stand trial. The statute, however, makes no mention of any such preliminary determination by the court as a basis for deciding whether to call for a psychiatric examination. The “reasonable cause” referred to in section 4244 is that of the movant, not the court. Nor does the statute contemplate a preliminary testing of the movant’s reasonable cause as a basis for a possible denial of the motion without first calling for a psychiatric examination.”
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.