Wallace v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although `a factfinder need not adhere to an expert opinion on incompetency if there is reason to discount it,' Strickland v. Francis , 738 F.2d 1542 , 1552 (11th Cir. 1984), `the jury cannot arbitrarily ignore the experts in favor of the observations of laymen,' id. , and must have an `objective reason,' to disregard the expert's opinion which is rebutted only by lay testimony. Wallace v. Kemp , 757 F.2d 1102 , 1109 (11th Cir. 1985). "`In making this judgment [to disregard the expert's opinion], the court should consider "(1) the correctness or adequacy of the factual assumptions on which the expert opinions are based; "(2) possible bias in the experts' appraisal of the defendant's condition; "(3) inconsistencies in the experts' testimony, or material variations between experts; and”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Russell v. State · Dunaway v. State

2. “The issue in this ease and the sole issue in this case, is whether or not the person charged in this Court with a criminal offense is, at the present time, suffering from a disease of the mind and is so far insane as to be unable to comprehend the proceedings and be incapable of conducting her defense if she were tried for the alleged offense. You are not concerned in this trial with guilt or innocence of any alleged criminal offense. You are here in this case for the purpose of deciding whether or not a person charged in this Court with a criminal offense is, at this time, mentally competent to stand trial. The question is whether or not Janice Buttrum ... is at the present time, suffering from a disease of the mind and is so far insane or mentally incapable that she is incapable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against her.... This proceeding is not, in any sense, a criminal proceeding.... The sole question is whether or not she is now sane and mentally competent to be tried for a criminal offense, and the purpose of this proceeding and of your verdict herein shall be to answer that question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Buttrum v. Black

3. ““This is not a case in which the psychiatrists relied only upon the defendant’s subjective description of his symptoms, see, e.g., Mims [v. United States], 375 F.2d [135,] 145 [(5th Cir.1967) ]; United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 908 (5th Cir.1976), in which the doctors were unaware of the defendant’s legal problems, see, e.g., Mims, 375 F.2d at 145, or in which there was a lack of any history of mental abnormalities. Id. See generally Strickland [v. Francis], 738 F.2d [1542,] 1553 [(11th Cir.1984) ]. “Although the state countered some of the minor grounds upon which the experts relied, their diagnoses were nonetheless based on overwhelming, accurate additional factors. There was insufficient reason, therefore, for the jury to disregard the psychiatrists’ testimony.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Russell v. State