State v. Swain’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Paulussen v. Herion · 98 Wash. 2d 789 - State v. Crenshaw · 104 Wash. 2d 479 - State v. Ortiz · 114 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Harris · 27 Wash. App. 326 - State v. Crenshaw
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Q Who am I? A My attorney. Q Okay. What's my job? A To represent me. Q Who is that man in the black robe? A He's the judge. Q What's his job? A Pardon? Q What's his job? A Well, that's for you to decide. You can say better than I can. I never went to law school. Q Okay. What do you think his job is? A You are trying to confuse me. Q No, I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm just asking you. What's his job? A Well, to make a decision. Can you make the right one? That's not asking much. Q Who is this? A He's the prosecutor. And I left a note in your office. Q What's his job? A I'm not very well satisfied with the way you did things. That's why we are having trouble in here right now. Q What's his job? A They threatened Larry if Larry went to Badger Mountain. Q No, David. My question is, What's his job? A He's the prosecutor. His job is to prosecute me. Q Okay. And do you know what a jury is? A What? Q. Do you know what a jury is?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Swain“we conclude a decision declaring a criminal defendant incompetent under RCW 10.77 is reviewable as a matter of right. We still must decide, however, at what point a competency determination under RCW 10.77.090 becomes reviewable as of right. The statute provides for a stay of proceedings, upon a finding of incompetency, for an initial period of up to 90 days. RCW 10.77.090(1). This period may be extended for an additional 90-day period, during which a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Swain“MR. BIGGAR [prosecutor]: I would call David Swain to the stand. THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I know you are confused. Who isn't? THE COURT: Well, that's true, Mr. Swain. But I understand, sir, you want to testify; is that right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. But if you did things likeLet me explain something to you. MR. WEAVER [defense counsel]: David, why don't you go up to the witness stand. THE DEFENDANT: I forgot. I forgot we was in a courtroom. It's a mess.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Swain
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.