Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 SW3D 264 - State v. Brown

State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Mauro · Carchman v. Nash New Jersey Department of Corrections · State v. Cabbage · McBee v. State

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

  1. “[P]rison administrators were “thwarted in [their] effort[s] toward rehabilitation [because t]he inmate who has a detainer against him is filled with anxiety and apprehension and frequently does not respond to a training program.” Furthermore, the prisoner was often deprived of the ability to take advantage of many of the prison’s programs aimed at rehabilitation, merely because there was a detainer lodged against him.... [T]he existence of detainers [also] presented problems in sentencing; when detainers had previously been filed against the defendant, the sentencing judge would hesitate to give as long a sentence as he thought might otherwise be indicated, there being a possibility that the defendant would be required to serve subsequent sentences.... The adverse effects of detainers that prompted the drafting and enactment of the Agreement are thus for the most part the consequence of the lengthy duration of detainers.... For these reasons the stated purpose of the Agreement is “to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of [outstanding] charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(b) After Verdict of Guilt.— (1) In General. — After a verdict of guilty, any judge regularly presiding in or who is assigned to a court may complete the court’s duties if the judge before whom the trial began cannot proceed because of absence, death, sickness, or other disability. (2) Granting a New Trial. — The successor judge may grant a new trial when that judge concludes that he or she cannot perform those duties because of the failure to preside at the trial or for any other reason.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.