Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. ““A prisoner has no standing to choose between two sovereignties each desiring his custody. He does not have a choice of keepers.” United States ex rel. Spellman v. Murphy, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 247, 251 . Whether the state should voluntarily surrender a prisoner to the federal authorities to answer a federal charge or whether the federal government should voluntarily surrender a convicted prisoner to the state to answer a state charge, without the consent of the prisoner, are questions of jurisdiction and custody for the determination of the two sovereigns under reciprocal rules of comity, and do not involve a personal right of the prisoner. Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 865, 866 ; Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 468 ; McDonald v. United States, 5 Cir., 403 F.2d 37 , and cases cited, l.c. 38; Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260 , 42 S.Ct. 309, 310 , 66 L.Ed. 607, 611 . “It is well established that where state authorities surrender a prisoner to the federal authorities for trial, sentence, and execution of sentence before he is to be returned to state custody, the prisoner has no standing to contest the agreement between the sovereigns as to the order of prosecution and execution of sentences; that is, he may not challenge either his original removal from state custody, or his return thereto after the completion of his federal sentence. See Derengowski v. United States Marshal, 8th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 223 ; Hall v. Looney, 10th Cir. 195”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harkins v. Lauf