Stone v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.2d 503 · 1966
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 1999 · most notably Hansford v. United States (1966), Moore v. United States (1972)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 4245 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Sanders v. United States · United State v. Morgan · United States v. Hayman · Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Harrington
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By amendment to his motion, he [appellant] claims that he was denied a fair trial by the failure of the trial court to comply with Chapter 552, in that defendant was not accorded an adequate hearing and judicial determination of his competence to stand trial. “Early in this case, and while defendant was still in the Pike County jail and on the 19th day of September, 1966, defendant’s appointed attorneys filed a motion for examination of defendant as to his mental competency. That motion was sustained and defendant was sent to Fulton State Hospital October 13, 1966 for examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 552.020. Without giving all the details, suffice it to say that the report of the hospital was filed in court January 7, 1967, and found that defendant had no physical defects, was oriented for time, place and person, his memory unimpaired, he was quite alert, with an IQ of 79. He displayed no evidence of mental disease; was clear and coherent in speech; had no mental disease or defect within the meaning of Section 552.010; had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and could assist in his own defense; that the accused did know and appreciate the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his conduct. The report concluded by recommending he be returned to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for final disposition of the charges against him. Prior to this report there was no suggestion that defendant had a mental disease or defect. No friend or member o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCormick v. State““It has been frequently stated, and occasionally held, as in the Dodd, and Handlon cases cited by the district court, that when the issue of competency to stand trial is raised and resolved before or during trial, the judgment of conviction may not be collaterally attacked on this ground. We need not decide whether this is a proper formulation of the rule applicable in some circumstances; in any event it cannot be applied to the present case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The competency rule did not evolve from philosophical notions of punishability, but rather had deep roots in the common law as a by-product of the ban against trials in absentia; the mentally incompetent defendant, though physically present in the courtroom, is in reality afforded no opportunity to defend himself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Watts v. Singletary
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.