Newbold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1992
16 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
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · McMann v. Richardson · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Whalem v. United States
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The record further shows request for a second examination which was granted but, upon the court’s unwillingness to provide for its payment, defendant declined to pursue it. It shows also that counsel took the Fulton report and consulted with two psychiatrists to determine whether to seek additional examination. The proceedings at the guilty pleas transpired without further mention of a desire for further examination or the presence of mental disease or defect; and, as stated by Judge Walsh, there was no issue of defendant’s competency at the plea proceedings. Nothing in the record indicated incompetency of defendant when he was pleading, and no question was directed to the Fulton report. At the most, the record indicated only that he had some history of mental problems and an inability to detail the facts of his crimes. There is even positive evidence of his rationality in his question to the court for the meaning of imprisonment “for his natural life.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Newbold v. Swenson““Brizendine v. Swenson, 302 F.Supp. 1011 (W.D.Mo.1969), cited by appellant, is no longer the standard in these situations even in the United States District Court for the the Western District of Missouri. In Gregg v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 335 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.Mo.1971), petitioner sought relief directly in the federal court claiming ‘exceptional circumstances’ by way of a ‘foregone conclusion’ that Missouri courts will not follow the standards enumerated in Brizendine v. Swenson. The district court observed that neither Missouri nor the federal appellate courts now equate the ‘substantial doubt’ of Brizendine v. Swenson with the bona fide doubt of Pate v. Robinson, supra, before a court need grant a competency examination.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State
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.