Branscomb v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.3d 258 · 1995
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably State v. Tokar (1996), William Clifford Bryson v. Ronald Ward (1999)
16 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Ake v. Oklahoma · Godinez v. Moran · Liteky v. United States · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Laughlin v. Internal Revenue Service
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless there is some contrary indication, state and federal trial judges may presume that defendants are competent. Other than a statement by defense counsel that Branscomb exhibited to them "extreme distrust, paranoia, and flights of fantasies," the trial court had before it no evidence that Branscomb acted irrationally. While some of Branscomb's claims about himself were unquestionably false, he communicated effectively with the trial judge during his change of plea hearing, and he testified coherently from the witness stand during a suppression hearing. Branscomb denied that he had undergone prior psychiatric evaluation or treatment, and there is no evidence in the record to contradict his report. The state psychiatrist concluded that Branscomb did not suffer from major psychosis, and the statement of defense counsel alone was not enough to establish sufficient doubt about Branscomb's competency. On these facts, the trial judge was not required to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. (citations omitted)(emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Edwards“contemplated in Branscomb. Id. The habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving that objective facts known to the trial court raised a sufficient doubt to require a competency hearing. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McDonald v. Delo“the trial court may consider an express doubt by the accused's attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Edwards
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.