United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 189 · 1990
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Cordova (2006), United States v. Gallo (1994)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 3563 · 18 U.S.C. § 3565 · 18 U.S.C. § 4243 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Bearden v. Georgia · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Burns 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The new Alabama and federal insanity statutes represent a significant change from the insanity defenses previously available in criminal trials. Formerly, a defendant was not responsible for his criminal acts if "at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lack[ed] substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dunaway v. State · Ware v. State“the probationer who fails to keep his probation officer informed of his residence may be found no longer to merit probation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Affirmative defense. — It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b). Burden of proof. — The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
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.