Sturgis v. Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis
796 F.2d 1103 · 1986
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Evans v. Lewis (1988), McKenzie v. Risley (1988)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Faretta v. California · United States v. Wade
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge,' unless the presence would be 'useless, or the benefit but a shadow.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Th[e] interests in due process and fairness are fundamental to our adversary system. The adversarial nature of the system does not simply spring out full blown at trial. It commences earlier. For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination ... applies to pretrial competency ex-aminations____ “During the psychiatric evaluation, respondent assuredly was ‘faced with a phase of the adversary system’.... ” Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 467, 101 S.Ct. 1866 [ 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) ] (quotations and brackets in original) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. [436,] 469, 86 S.Ct. [1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)]). Thus, the interests underlying the right to be present at trial apply to the right to be present at a pretrial competency hearing....”
1 later decision 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.