United States v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 446 · 1972
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Drope v. Missouri (1975), United States v. Diaz (1999)
38 federal appellate · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Dusky v. United States · Harrington v. California · Pate v. Robinson · Opper 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he “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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Guglielmo created several disruptions during the eight-day trial. There were several outbursts when he directed obscenities and accusations toward the Court, witnesses, and the prosecutor. On one occasion, the Court ordered Guglielmo removed from the courtroom and there was one instance when he chose to absent himself. At one point, he requested that the Court just sentence him and spare him the unfair trial he was receiving. On another occasion, Guglielmo hurled a water pitcher at the prosecutor and later threw a chair toward the jury rail. Finally, during summation by Solina’s counsel, Guglielmo cut his wrists with a razor blade and also cut his tongue, purportedly attempted to swallow the blade.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order the appellant to be examined a third time. . When the second examination confirmed the findings of the first, the trial judge became convinced that Guglielmo was malingering. His observations of Guglielmo throughout the remainder of the trial did not alter that conclusion. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to regard appellant’s disruptive conduct as providing “reasonable cause” to believe he was incompetent.”
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.