Commonwealth v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On September 16, 1991, a criminal complaint and an arrest warrant issued from the Chelsea Division ■ of the District Court Department against the defendant for rape in violation of [Massachusetts General Laws ch.] 265, § 22(b),- and unarmed burglary in violation of [Massachusetts General Laws ch.] 266, § 15, both alleged to have occurred three days earlier. On May 21, 1992, a warrant for the defendant’s arrest for these crimes was lodged at the correctional institution where the defendant was serving a sentence on unrelated charges. It appears •from the docket, that- court personnel in the District Court failed to enter details concerning the warrant in the warrant management system as required by [Massachusetts General Laws ch.] 276, § 23A. In January, 1993, while still incarcerated on the unrelated charges, the defendant signed a form requesting a speedy trial on the 1991 complaint. Although the District Court received the defendant’s request, the form was not docketed and no action was taken on the request. A department of correction “summaiy/key issues” report dated April 14, 1993, stated that rape and burglary charges against the defendant were outstanding; however, subsequent “summary/key issues” reports issued between 1994 and 1997, which the defendant signed, stated that the defendant had “no outstanding legal issues.” The defendant completed his sentence on the unrelated charges and was released on June 21, 1997. Three days later, a second warrant for his arrest issu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 3d 166 - Butler v. Mitchell

2. “The Commonweálth has conceded that the loss of cushions from the couch where intercourse occurred, photographs of the door the defendant allegedly kicked in, and the written pages of -the rape kit used by the hospital where the victim received treatment following the incident with the defendant have been lost due its negligence.” Butler, 464 Mass. at 718 , 985 N.E.2d 377 . . In the Commonwealth’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, the state noted:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 3d 166 - Butler v. Mitchell

3. “[B]ecause the decision not to advance a losing argument does not fall ‘measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer,’ and because the defendant was not ‘deprived of an otherwise available, substantial ground of deference’ by virtue of his counsel’s decision not to advance a constitutional speedy trial argument on direct appeal, we conclude that the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 3d 166 - Butler v. Mitchell