State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If ... the court determines the claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court's view of the potential viability of the claim.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Gabriel Dann · State of Iowa v. Marc Christopher Plettenberg

2. “[D]efendants are no longer required to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, and when they choose to do so, they are not required to make any particular record in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Dominic Devon Eady · State of Iowa v. Marc Christopher Plettenberg

3. “At common law, the State could not try a criminal defendant if that person’s mental condition was such that he or she lacked the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing a defense. The Supreme Court has stated the test to determine if a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial is whether the person has sufficient present ability to consult with [counsel] with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether [the person] has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings. In Iowa, we define the test as whether the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder which prevents the defendant from appreciating the charge, understanding the proceedings, or assisting effectively in the defense. Iowa Code § 812.3 (1). The common thread running through these tests is that a criminal defendant must be able to effectively assist counsel in his or her defense. We presume a defendant is competent to stand trial. The defendant has the burden of proving his or her incompetency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. If the evidence is in equipoise, the presumption of competency prevails. Moreover, once a court finds a defendant competent to stand trial, the presumption of competency continues unless and until the defendant produces new evidence to the contrary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Neitzel