Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Wilkins v. State (1991), McCrary v. State (1975)
2 federal appellate · 34 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Brady v. United States · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Dusky 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If in the course of the prosecution defendant’s counsel comes to the honest belief that his client lacks present capacity for rational understanding and cooperation, the integrity of the adversary process and his duty of advocacy require counsel to use the procedures the law allows for adjudication of that issue, (citations omitted). Consistently with this principle, our courts have placed much reliance upon the absence of doubt by defense counsel as to his client’s competency to assume the regularity of criminal proceedings.” (citations omitted) . supra at 86-87 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Witt v. State · Garrett v. State““There was no evidence of any bizarre behavior. It appears that there was no indication that he was suffering from a psychotic mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense. VIII. FINDINGS 1) That the accused has a mental disease or a defect within the meaning of Section 552.010. There is a schizophrenia, a chronic undifferentiated type, in remission. 2) That the accused has the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and can assist in his own defense. 3) That the accused did know and appreciate the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his alleged conduct and was capable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. 4) That the accused does not require hospitalization pending further proceedings. IX. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Mr. Mayfield be returned to court for disposition of the charges pending against him. Continue Thorzine Concentrate, 200 mg. A.M. and 200 mg. at h. s. (Signed) Rohidas Patil, M.D. Resident in Psychiatry Fulton State Hospital.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mayfield““If neither the state nor the accused nor his counsel contests the opinion referred to in subsection 3, subdivision (3), of this section relative to fitness to proceed, the court may make a determination and finding of record on the basis of the report filed or may hold a hearing on its own motion. If any such opinion is contested the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vansandts
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.