593 So. 2d 198 - Watts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 846 So. 2d 472 - Logan v. State (2003), 699 So. 2d 1312 - Franqui v. State (1997)
43 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 Faretta v. California · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Payne v. Tennessee · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here a defendant seeks to discharge court-appointed counsel due to alleged incompetency, it is incumbent upon the trial court to make a sufficient inquiry of the defendant and counsel to determine wither there is reasonable cause to believe that counsel is not rendering effective assistance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In situations where there is conflicting expert testimony regarding the defendant's competency, it is the trial court's responsibility to consider all the evidence relevant to competency and resolve the factual dispute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. During the penalty stage, the defense called Dr.' Hyman Eisenstein, a licensed psychologist, to testify about defendant’s mental health. Dr. Eisenstein performed neuropsychological testing and •conducted a clinical interview. After his examination, Dr. Eisenstein concluded that Mr. Smith has “unequivocal brain damage” and “brain impairment,” and as a result of these deficits Mr. Smith’s decision-making ability is profoundly impaired. While Dr. Eisenstein also suggested Mr. Smith has an Antisocial Personality Disorder, he believes that “brain pathology” better explains Mr. Smith’s behavior. Ultimately Dr. Eisenstein testified that Mr. Smith was under the influence of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and that he lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. To bolster the testimony of Dr. Eisenstein, the defense requested that an MRI and a PET scan be performed. To interpret the results of these tests the defense asked the court to appoint Dr. Ruben Gur to analyze the results.... At the Spencer hearing, Dr. Gur testified that the brain testing revealed the existence of frontal lobe damage which has major behavioral consequences for Mr. Smith, and Dr. Eisenstein repeated his previous conclusion that Mr. Smith lacks the ability to control himself in high pressure situations ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.