Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 401 · 1965
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Robert v. Bruce v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (1973), Birdsell v. United States (1965)
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Escobedo v. Illinois · Massiah v. United States · Sanders v. United States · Hill 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here are many shades and phases of mental disorders as well as degrees of severity, and * * * the law * * attaches different consequences to the presence of a particular mental disorder in a defendant at different stages of the trial process,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““to put off for ten or fifteen years consideration of Johnson’s mental competency with regard to the contempt conviction until he begins serving that sentence will certainly frustrate, if not foreclose forever, any intelligent answer to these related questions which depend so much on evanescent psychiatric data and opinions.” 344 F.2d at 411 .”
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.