Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 F.2d 368 - Wilburn Jerome Gerberding v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden

Wilburn Jerome Gerberding v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

435 F.2d 368 · 1970

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
4
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 1997

12 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

180197019801990decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Harrington v. California · Burgett v. Texas · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell

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

  1. ““. . . The Burgett case, while it started out as a recidivist trial, did not end up as one, and the court there only determined that convictions called to the attention of the jury, but not admitted into evidence, were prejudicial. It does appear that the State is being unduly faulted for a trial error made at a time when it was constitutionally permissible under Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 , 62 S.Ct. 1252 , 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942), to use a conviction obtained against a defendant who was not represented by counsel. Under the factual situation of the instant case, where two other valid prior felony convictions were proved to the jury, it clearly appears that Ger-berding was not prejudiced by the use of the now constitutionally infirm earlier conviction. The two admittedly valid prior convictions were more than sufficient to call for application of the enhanced penalty. . . . As to whether or not the use of the invalid conviction was so inherently prejudicial as to affect the substantive guilt-finding process, this case would appear to be a proper one for the application of the ‘harmless error’ rule. . . .””
    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.