State v. Brizendine’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 1981
8 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Hamilton v. Alabama · White v. State of Maryland
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Examination of the court’s opinion in Pate v. Robinson, supra, shows the significance of the absence, in this case, of substantial support for the claim of incompetency to stand trial. In Pate, there was evidence on a broad scale relating to the defendant’s mental capacity. The defendant had had a long history, adduced at the trial, of behavior evidencing mental illness. The Su preme Court held that, in such circumstances, the trial court had the duty to consider and pass upon the competency of the defendant to stand trial, regardless of the absence of request by counsel for either the state or the petitioner.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Strictly for the Court’s edification, and just based upon what I know about the man, he has been, as far as I know, if not on hard narcotics, has been on “goofballs” for I don’t know how long; in fact, was convicted of it. The conviction was set aside because of error in the instructions. He had been convicted at the time he was called to testify as a witness for George Lawrence Watson, whom I was trying, and so I saw “Flapjack,” as we call him, in the courtroom, on the stand. I mean this doesn’t — I don’t say the man is mentally unstable, but based upon what I know of him, he is goofy. If that is mentally unstable, I don’t know. [Ibid].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On January 31, 1964, the Court sustained Defendant’s motion for a mental examination and directed the Defendant to be delivered to State Hospital No. 2 at St. Joseph, Missouri. ****** Following Defendant’s return from State Hospital No. 2, no hearing was held by the Court to determine Defendant’s competency to stand trial as provided for by Section 552.020, V.A.M.S. * * * * * * Chapter 552 of the Missouri Statutes became effective in October, 1963, and was applicable to the arraignment and other proceedings involving Defendant Brizendine. [ 433 S.W.2d at 330 ],”
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.