John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond J. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 809 · 1974
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976)
58 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Richardson v. Perales · Morrissey v. Brewer · Younger v. Harris
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[P]ersonal knowledge of, and sometimes bias toward, the inmate defendant, tendency to support staff, and reaction to inmate attitude toward the [disciplinary committee]’ may affect the decisions of any prison administrator or staff member sitting on a disciplinary committee. [Citation.] And it is likely that most prison officials will have some awareness of at least the more significant disciplinary problems which have arisen within the institution. Nevertheless, provided that no member of the disciplinary committee has participated or will participate in the case as an investigating or reviewing officer, or either is a witness or has personal knowledge of material facts related to the involvement of the accused inmate in the specific alleged infraction (or is otherwise personally interested in the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding), a hearing board comprised of prison officials will satisfy the due process requirement of a 1 “neutral and detached” hearing body.’ ” (Clutchette v. Procunier, supra, 497 F.2d 809, 820 , italics added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A disciplinary hearing is inherently inquisitive. It is designed to induce revelation of all the facts, including the accused inmate’s version of them. The prison disciplinary hearing forces the prisoner into a situation of “interrogative custody,” and the prison authorities must safeguard the inmate’s privilege against self-incrimination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Conley · Avant v. Clifford“The fundamental guaranty of due process is the opportunity to be heard... The ability to produce evidence other than [the prisoner's] own testimony is necessary to assure that he will be heard 'in a meaningful manner.' Without such a right, relevant exculpatory evidence, not within the personal knowledge of the accused but nonetheless essential to a fair and accurate fact finding determination, may not be heard at all”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wise v. Carpenter
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.