Pulliam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . .If you do not want to plead guilty you do not have to. And, you were tried before and acquitted. Now, you might be acquitted in this case too. I understand this case is a little stronger than the other case, but you might be acquitted; do you understand that? The Defendant: Yes, Sir. The Court: And you will be tried under the Habitual Criminal Act. If this case were tried before a St. Louis County Jury you might win it or you might lose it; do you understand that? The Defendant: Yes, Sir. The Court: If you win it you walk out a free man and all you would have to serve is the seven months you have been revoked on by Uncle Sam; do you understand that? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: If you are convicted you might get more or you might get less than the fourteen years; do you understand that? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: And knowing all of this in advance, knowing you will not receive probation and knowing that you will receive fourteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections, it is my understanding you want to plead guilty, is that right? The Defendant: Yes.” The prosecutor then recited a detailed statement of the State’s evidence against the defendant. The colloquy between the court and the defendant continued as follows: “The Court: Are you guilty of this charge, Mr. Toler? The Defendant: Yes, Sir. The Court: You heard the facts the State said, what they would prove if this case went to trial? The Defendant: Yes, Sir. The Court: I don’t know what a St. Louis C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Toler v. State

2. ““On the issue whether an accused is competent to stand trial or to plead, ‘the “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.” ’ Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 ; Wolf v. United States, 10 Cir., 430 F.2d 443, 444 [1].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rand