United States v. Reason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “We . . . suspend the judgment of defendant’s conviction and remand his case to the district court for appointment of a psychiatric expert of defendant’s selection to make a post-trial examination ... If the psychiatrist concludes that Reason was not responsible for his acts, there will be “a substantial question of criminal responsibility,” . . . and the judgment of conviction will be vacated and a new trial ■ granted. Otherwise, the judgment of conviction [shall] stand affirmed because the district court’s error in denying a § 3006A(e) examination will have been shown to have been harmless if the psychiatrist of Reason’s selection agrees that Reason was criminally responsible for his acts. If, however, a determination of criminal responsibility cannot be made by the § 3006A(e) expert solely because the examination was delayed, the judgment will be reversed without a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 475 F. Supp. 556 - Wood v. Zahradnick

2. “[N]either § 4244 nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of the testimony of the government’s psychiatrist with regard to criminal responsibility when defendant has already introduced his witnesses on the issue of sanity, the original court order apprised the defendant that the psychiatrist would be examining both for competency and responsibility, and the only issue is criminal responsibility for the act that defendant admits that he committed. 8”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Loe