Chavez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
656 F.2d 512 · 1981
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably United States v. Flynt (1985), Williams v. Woodford (2002)
98 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Padilla-Martinez 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a good faith doubt as to the defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the plea, or to participate intelligently in the proceedings and to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“• Collins “is mentally competent to stand trial. He has demonstrated a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the charge against him and has sufficient mental capacity to assist his attorney in the preparation of his defense and is able to communicate with his attorney in a rational and logical manner.” Record (“R.”) at 111, Report of Marjorie J. Muzyczka, Ph.D. (examination conducted between February 23, 1989 and March 8, 1989). • Collins “currently manifests schizophrenia, undifferentiated type____ He would be unable to respond appropriately to the court or to requirements of courtroom behavior.” Id., Report of Mark Amdur, M.D. (examination conducted March 27 and 28, 1989). Dr. Amdur concluded Collins was not competent. • Collins’s “delusional and persecutory ideation clearly extends to his perceptions of his present legal status, and for this reason, it is my opinion that he is not presently competent to stand trial.” Id., Report of Orest E. Wasyl-iw, Ph.D. (examination conducted April 5 and May 3, 1989). • Collins was malingering, and “[i]t is highly likely that Mr. Collins will continue to claim psychiatric illness and symptoms throughout the resolution of his legal situation____ It remains our opinion, however, that this behavior is voluntary and not secondary to psychiatric illness.” Id., Report of Kevin J. McBride, Ph.D., and Walter L. Cassidy, M.D. (examination conducted between July 29, 1989 and September 30, 1989). Drs. McBride and Cassidy found Collins “cu”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e review the record to see if the evidence of incompetence was such that a reasonable judge would be expected to experience a genuine doubt respecting the defendant's competence.”
8 later decisions 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.