Goetz v. Crosson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e might not all agree on the number of wrongful acquittals we are willing to accept to guard against one wrongful conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Doyle · United States v. Doyle

2. “Goetz I "). In the first appeal, we addressed appellants' claim that, inter alia, the Constitution required the State of New York to provide a psychiatrist to aid counsel to, and perhaps testify for, indigent persons subject to involuntary commitment or retention proceedings. We held that there is no constitutional right to the aid of such a psychiatrist in such proceedings. Id. at 34-35. However, we remanded for consideration of whether, if a judge presiding over an involuntary commitment or retention hearing determines that an independent psychiatrist's testimony is needed, New York's procedures--as applied in Dutchess County--for the appointment of such an independent psychiatrist meet constitutional standards. Id. at 36-37. We defined an independent psychiatrist as one "unassociated with the state, who will examine the patient and testify as to the need for institutionalization ... regardless of whether the testimony supports or rejects commitment or retention. Such a psychiatrist also has no obligation to provide any other assistance to the patient or the patient's counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Goetz v. Crosson

3. “Where the trier believes that an accurate assessment of the subject’s psychiatric condition cannot be reliably made -without the aid of an independent psychiatrist, and the subject is financially unable to procure such testimony, a cognizable due process concern may arise. The liberty and self-protection interests of the subject are at stake, the fiscal consequences to the state are far more attenuated than in the case of a claim to a consulting or independent psychiatrist in every commitment or retention proceeding, and the danger of an inaccurate ruling is established by the trier’s judgment that independent psychiatric testimony is necessary____ Whether New York’s procedures sometimes do not provide access to the testimony of an independent psychiatrist when the presiding judge believes such testimony to be necessary cannot be determined on the record before us. We therefore remand for further proceedings on this claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 838 F. Supp. 136 - Goetz v. Crosson