State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 43 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled that when a party once places the question of his mental condition in issue he thereby waives the physician-patient privilege to exclude testimony of any doctors who have examined him for that purpose.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Skillicorn

2. “The fundamental purpose of a criminal trial is the fair ascertainment of the truth. People v. Sorna, 276 N.W.2d 892, 895 [4] (Mich.App.1979). The jury needed every bit of available evidence touching that issue in order to render an intelligent, fair and just verdict. Not only the defendant, but also the State of Missouri, has a direct interest in an accurate, just and informed verdict based upon all available relevant and material evidence bearing on the question. The trier of the fact must not be “so effectively deprived of valuable witnesses as to undermine the public interest in the administration of justice.” Pouncy v. Florida, 353 So.2d 640, 642 (Fla.App.1977). In United States ex rel. Edney v. Smith, 425 F.Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y.1976), ..., the court at 1046 referred to “The increased potential for inaccuracy in the truth-finding process as the trier of fact is deprived of valuable witnesses,” and referred to the salutary concept that “the trier of fact should have adequate access to as much of the available psychiatric testimony as possible where the defendant’s mental state is in issue.” Id. at 1049 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perez v. People · State v. Simonton

3. “Defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by the court's ruling. The fact that counsel in preparing the defense for his client could possibly choose a psychiatrist who might make a report adverse to counsel's theory of defense, or that in a psychiatric examination a defendant might speak guardedly or be less than candid with the doctor, knowing that the doctor might turn out to be a witness against him are not considerations of sufficient importance in this case to outweigh and override the stated requirements of fairness, justice and public policy in determining whether a request by the State for disclosure is reasonable....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perez v. People · Gray v. District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District