429 F. Supp. 944 - Thundershield v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
November 1977
most recently cited
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2246 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · Brady v. United States · Santobello v. New York · McMann v. Richardson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[BY THE COURT:] The elements of this offense, that which the state would have to prove, are alleged in the information. That you, by your own act, procurement or culpable negligence, in other words one of these three ways, you killed another human being, that human being, being Paul Raymond Gilchrist. In other words by your act you killed somebody, or by your procurement you killed somebody, or by culpable negligence you killed somebody. Whichever of those three would apply, and of course such killing would not be justifiable. In other words, you had no authority of law, no other legal reason to kill him, and of course it’s not such as would be first degree, just plain murder, which I have previously explained, or it wouldn’t be first degree manslaughter. Now that’s quite lengthy, do you have any questions concerning what the elements of this offense are? BY THE DEFENDANT: (No response) BY THE COURT: Do you have any questions? BY THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t understand. BY THE COURT: Do you have any questions to ask the Court, to ask me, to help you further understand this provision? BY THE DEFENDANT: No. BY THE COURT: Do you understand it? BY MR. BROWN: My client indicates that he does not understand Your Honor. BY THE COURT: Okay. What is the extent of your education? BY THE DEFENDANT: Fourth grade. BY THE COURT: Okay, the offense charged is second degree manslaughter, that’s its common name, that’s what we refer to it as commonly, and to have committed that crime you must ha”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“BY THE COURT: Is the defendant satisfied that Paul Raymond Gilchrist is now dead? BY THE DEFENDANT: Yes. BY THE COURT: Are you satisfied that he died by an act of yourself? BY THE DEFENDANT: (No response) BY THE COURT: Are you satisfied he died as a result of some act you did? BY THE STATES ATTORNEY: Your Hon- or, for point of clarification I might point out that Mr. Thundershield’s confession to I think Calvin Yellowrobe and Henry Gayton, he said that he did kick him and that he may have hit him with a tire iron. In other words by his acts, this is what the Judge is wondering. Whether you by your acts, your kicking, hitting him with the tire iron caused his death. BY THE DEFENDANT: I didn’t use any tire iron. BY THE COURT: But some act, in other words, that at this time the Court must determine that there is a factual basis for this charge, and that factual basis would be that Paul Gilchrist is dead and he is dead as a result of some act you did. Now are you satisfied that he is dead and that he is dead as a result of some act you did, whatever that act was? BY MR. BROWN: My client doesn’t understand Your Honor. Perhaps the use of the word “act” confuses him. BY THE COURT: Well did you either hit or kick or strike, or something to that nature, Mr. Gilchrist? BY THE DEFENDANT: Kicked, that’s all. BY THE COURT: And did that act facilitate, or did that act result in his death? BY THE DEFENDANT: (No response) BY THE COURT: Did that cause him to be killed? BY THE DEFENDANT: I don”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Normally the record contains either an explanation of the charge by the trial judge, or at least a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense has been explained to the accused. Moreover, even without such an express representation, it may be appropriate to presume that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit. This case is unique because the trial judge found as a fact that the element of intent was not explained to respondent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.