Granviel v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Muniz v. State (1993), Ladd v. State (1999)
25 federal appellate · 39 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane · Ake v. Oklahoma · Granviel v. Lynaugh
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ake was concerned not with establishing a procedure whereby an independent examiner could determine the validity of a defendant’s insanity defense and present his findings to both parties and to the court. Rather, Ake was directed at providing a defendant with the tools necessary to present an effective defense within the context of our adversarial system, in which each party marshals evidence favorable to its side and aggressively challenges the evidence presented by the other side. In that adversarial system, “the psychiatrists for each party enable the [court or] jury to make its most accurate determination of the truth on the issue before them.” [470 U.S.], at 81, 105 S.Ct. 1087 . Thus, we recognized in Ake that a defense psychiatrist is necessary not only to examine a defendant and to present findings to the judge or jury on behalf of the defendant, but also to “assist in preparing the cross-examination of a State’s psychiatric witnesses,” id., at 82 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , and in determining “how to interpret their answers,” id., at 80 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . Just as an indigent defendant’s rights to legal assistance would not be satisfied by a State’s provision of a lawyer who, after consulting with the defendant and examining the facts of the case and the applicable law, presented everything he knew about the defendant’s guilt to the defendant, the prosecution, and the court, so his right to psychiatric assis tance is not satisfied by provision of a psychiatrist who must report”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Swindler v. · Powell v. Collins“Ake clearly established that a State must provide an indigent defendant with a qualified mental health expert retained specifically for the defense team, not a neutral expert available to both parties”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ward 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.