680 So. 2d 936 - Roy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[a] distinction must be made between a failure to investigate the mental history of an accused and the rejection of insanity as a defense after proper investigation. '[A]n attorney with considerable experience in criminal matters and, therefore, in dealing with a wide range of people . . . may be presumed to have some ability to evaluate the mental capacity of his client.' United States ex rel. Rivera v. Franzen , 594 F. Supp. 198 , 202 (N.D. Ill. 1984). `As a practical matter, when deciding whether to present an insanity defense, the criminal defendant's lawyer is truly the final psychiatrist. It is not the role of a court to doubt his judgment. . . . Trial counsel may not reject the insanity defense `"without pursuing the basic inquiries necessary to evaluate its merits intelligently."' Rivera , 594 F. Supp. at 203 . See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 771 So. 2d 1108 - Samra v. State · 791 So. 2d 383 - Payne v. State

2. “"In Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed. 2d 815 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that 'it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently "waive" his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.' 'Whether the defendant believed he was competent to stand trial is irrelevant for, if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, his belief that he is able to do so is without import.' Bundy v. Dugger , 816 F.2d 564 , 566, n. 2 (11th Cir. 1987). ".... "Numerous courts have addressed this issue and have concluded that an incompetent cannot waive his right to a competency hearing. See also People v. Lucas , 47 Mich. App. 385 , 209 N.W.2d 436 (1973) (both defendant and his attorney are prohibited from waiving the right to have the court determine defendant's capacity to stand trial); State v. Bauer , 310 Minn. 103 , 245 N.W.2d 848 (1976) (trial court has continuing duty during trial to institute procedures to evaluate defendant's competency if a doubt arises as to competency.); In re Davis , 8 Cal. 3d 798 , 505 P.2d 1018 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 178 (1973) ('this court has held that when a "doubt" arises in the mind of the trial judge regarding defendant's present sanity or competence to stand trial, it becomes his duty to certify the defendant for a sanity hearing; the matter is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by defendant or his counsel'); Miller v. State , 498 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. App. 1973) (tr”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monsanto v. Government of the Virgin Islands · 257 So. 3d 894 - Weeks v. State

3. “"The trial court in its initial order specifically stated that there was sufficient evidence to warrant an evaluation and nothing in the record indicates that this statement is incorrect. Further, the court did not rescind the order of the evaluation because it changed its mind on the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the appellant's competency and sanity; it rescinded the order because the appellant objected to the evaluation. As we have stated in this opinion, to do so constituted reversible error."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 So. 3d 894 - Weeks v. State