Hull v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.2d 159 · 1991
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Rose v. Lundy · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Michigan v. Long
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First of all, few lawyers possess even a rudimentary understanding of psychiatry. They therefore are wholly unqualified to judge the competency of their clients. . . . Trial counsel’s second explanation, Hull’s professed desire to be declared competent, also can be dismissed as illegitimate. . . . . . . “Fundamental to our adversary system of justice, and perhaps especially of criminal justice, is the prohibition against subjecting to trial a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense.” [Citation omitted.] A presumptively incompetent defendant thus cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of dictating counsel’s tactics at a competency hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a nunc pro tunc allocatur petition is perfunctorily denied without discussion, when its untimeliness is apparent, and when sufficient facts to override the general disallowance of extended times for appeal are absent in the petition, the denial of allocatur can be presumed to be based on a procedural default caused by its untimeliness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caswell v. Ryan“In short, we think it axiomatic that the desire of a defendant whose mental faculties are in doubt to be found competent does not absolve counsel of his or her independent professional responsibility to put the government to its proof at a competency hearing when the case for competency is in serious question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilcoxson v. State
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.