Lansdown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) Petitioner alleged in his amended Rule 27.26 motion that he was denied the right to subpoena witnesses in his. behalf, same issue being presented to the Missouri Supreme Court on appeal. At the hearing on that motion, petitioner testified that he desired to call Danny Buchmaster and Gerald Mc-Crutcheon as witnesses. He said that these witnesses would have supported petitioner’s alibi defense by testifying that petitioner was already in jail at the time the car was stolen. Petitioner further testified that he gave his trial counsel and the sheriff the names of the witnesses he wanted to call. The trial court and the Missouri Supreme Court found that ‘. defendant was not denied the right to subpoena witnesses in his trial, but was afforded an opportunity to subpoena any witnesses he wanted’. This finding is so clearly erroneous and Unconstitutional (sic). There is absolutely no evidence contrary to petitioner’s testimony that he was denied the right to compulsory process. Petitioner’s trial counsel did not testify at the hearing, and the sheriff had nothing to say on that point. There is simply no evidence, whatever, to support the court’s finding. -X- * * -X- * * “(b) Petitioner alleged that he was improperly denied his right to appeal from his conviction. He further alleged that his trial counsel dealt away his right to appeal in violation of petitioner’s right to due process of law, though petitioner had requested an appeal, as evidenced by his counsel’s letter of Octob”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 F. Supp. 651 - Lansdown v. Swenson

2. ““(a) Petitioner was denied compulsory process to obtain wittnesses (sic) in his behalf for his defense at his trial. “(b) Petitioner was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. “(c) Petitioner was denied a Mental examination, when substantial evidence existed, showing that petitioner was a former mental patient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 F. Supp. 651 - Lansdown v. Swenson

3. ““. . . the defendant was not improperly denied a right for a sanity hearing by reason of the absence of any cogent evidence of his lack of mental capacity to participate in his trial; and further finds that defendant was sane and competent to assist in his defense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 F. Supp. 651 - Lansdown v. Swenson