United States v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 180 · 1969
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Villegas (1990), United States v. Ring (1975)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Dusky v. United States · Cree v. Goldstein · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · United States v. Freeman · Walker 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No part of a criminal proceeding may be proceeded with against a defendant who is at the time ‘insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense . . .’ 18 U.S.C. § 4244 . The test under the statute is stated in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960): ‘(The) test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding— and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Such a loss of memory may call for additional trial safeguards in particular circumstances, as where delay in trial has caused the loss of other evidence, but we are unwilling to hold that it is in all cases an automatic bar to prosecution for a crime amply established by competent evidence on trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If [the defendant] had developed an amnesia preventing his recollection of the events of the day in question, this would not in itself be a complete defense to the charge. There were other witnesses to the events who could and did testify. At the time of trial, [the defendant] was capable of understanding the charges and assisting] in the conduct of the trial. We cannot say that in these circumstances an amnesia for the events in question, if it were found that it actually existed, whether caused by drinking on the day in question or at a later date or dates ([the defendant] was out on bail for a period after arrest), or by later trauma, must constitute a defense to criminal prosecution for acts committed in an apparently sober and competent interlude.”
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.