Floyd v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court has recently noted that ‘it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently “waive” his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.’ Pate v. Robinson, 1966, 383 U.S. 375, 384 , 86 S.Ct. 836, 841 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 821 . Of course, the doctrine of waiver may have some vitality in the abuse of remedy exception to the hearing requirement of § 2255. As explained in Sanders v. United States, supra, [ 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963)] 373 U.S. at 17-19 , 83 S.Ct. at 1078-1079 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 162-163 , this exception dispenses with the necessity for a hearing on a prisoner’s § 2255 motion where the ground alleged in that motion was deliberately withheld from assertion by the prisoner in a prior § 2255 motion. And, it would seem, the same equitable principles underlying this exception would apply where the ground asserted in an original § 2255 motion was deliberately withheld from assertion at trial. However, the Court in Sanders made clear that the test used to determine abuse of remedy in the § 2255 area is the same as the test laid down in Fay v. Noia, 1963, 372 U.S. 391, 438-439 , 83 S.Ct. 822, 848-849 , 9 L. Ed.2d 837, 868-869, for determining whether there has been a deliberate by-pass of state courts in the federal habeas area * * * —‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege’ * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 276 F. Supp. 871 - Sharp v. Beto

2. ““Whenever after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence * * * the United States Attorney has reasonable cause to believe that a person charged with an offense against the United States may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or 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 * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Featherston v. Mitchell

3. “it can no longer be contended, as the Government here does, that a defendant’s failure to raise the question' of competency at trial precludes his raising it subsequently in a § 2255 pro ceeding — even when the question was presented by a pretrial psychiatric report * * * For * * * it [cannot] be said that Appellant’s failure to raise this question constituted a waiver * * *. (Italics added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 276 F. Supp. 871 - Sharp v. Beto