4 Neb. Ct. App. 776 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2023
11 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 Strickland v. Washington · California v. Green · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Bouchillon v. Collins
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following colloquy then occurred on the record between Johnson and Ms attorney: “[Attorney]: . . . We discussed also your competency to stand trial? “[Johnson]: Right. “[Attorney]: And you believe that you were competent to stand trial and competent to enter this plea today? “[Johnson]: That is correct.” The court then asked Johnson whether he committed the offense contained in the information. The following colloquy then occurred: “[Johnson]: I wasn’t here — I don’t know. I do believe that it happened, yes. “THE COURT: I’m sorry. I can’t hear you. “[Johnson]: I do believe it happened. “THE COURT: Okay, and you believe you did it? “[Johnson]: Well, I think Darrell Johnson did it, yes. “THE COURT: And you’re Darrell Johnson. “[Johnson]: I’m Darrell Johnson. “THE COURT: And you did it? “[Johnson]: Well, I wasn’t here, you know, I can’t say. “THE COURT: You don’t have any independent recollection of it taking place; is that correct? “[Johnson]: That is correct. “THE COURT: And even though you don’t have an independent recollection of it taking place, you’re willing to proceed with a guilty plea at this time based upon the information they have told you? “[Johnson]: Yes.” The court then found that Johnson had the capacity to understand the nature and the object of the proceedings against him, that he was able to “comprehend his own position in reference to the proceedings against him,” and that he was able to make a rational defense and decision on how he should proceed. The ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) If at any time prior to trial it appears that the accused has become mentally incompetent to stand trial, such disability may be called to the attention of the district court by the county attorney, by the accused, or by any person for the accused. The judge of the district court of the county where the accused is to be tried shall have the authority to determine whether or not the accused is competent to stand trial. The district judge may also cause such medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination of the accused to be made as he or she deems warranted and hold such hearing as he or she deems necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e do not believe the law is that there is a procedural bar in postconviction proceedings of issues relating to competency to stand trial, and we decline to impose such a procedural bar for these issues in this postconviction proceeding. In reaching this conclusion, we bear in mind the sanctity of constitutional protections and the need to guard against constitutionally infirm convictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.