United States v. McEachern’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 833 · 1972
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992), United States v. Hill (1975)
34 federal appellate · 15 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. § 1792 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Turner v. Louisiana · International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Rees v. Peyton
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 4244 provides for what is basically a three-step procedure. First, there must come to the attention of the court that there is “reasonable cause to believe that [the accused] may be * * * unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense,” which lack of capacity may take the form of insanity or other mental incompetency. Normally the situation is brought to the attention of the court by motion, filed on behalf of the accused or by the United States Attorney, alleging the existence of “reasonable cause to believe” and setting out the grounds for such reasonable cause. Or the court may proceed on its own motion, in which instance it will, of course, already be possessed of information giving it “reasonable cause to believe.” Second, “upon such a motion . the court shall cause the accused . to be examined as to his mental condition by at least one qualified psychiatrist, who shall report to the court.” Third, if the psychiatrist’s report indicates lack of requisite competency, the court shall hold a hearing, with notice, at which there may be submitted evidence of the accused’s mental condition, and shall make a finding with respect thereto. United States v. McEachern, 465 F.2d 833 , 836 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1043 , 93 S.Ct. 539 , 34 L.Ed.2d 494 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unquestionably there is an allowable range of discretion in the district judge in granting or denying a motion for a § 4244 examination [citations omitted]. But it is easy to misconceive the level of inquiry at which discretion is operative. As we have pointed out, the statute is mandatory in requiring an examination once the underlying criteria trigger its operation. The trial judge’s discretion operates at two levels; that of determining whether there is an undergirding factual basis for “reasonable cause to believe,” and whether the facts which the court accepts as existent are wholly insufficient to give rise to the alleged “reasonable cause to believe.” Interwoven through both levels is the principle, as usually articulated, that the court may reject a motion which it considers to be frivolous or filed not in good faith. Once the two levels of analysis are passed, discretion drops' out and the mandate of the statute takes over.”
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.