Castillo v. Stainer’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 145 · 1992
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Baker (1993), Duckett v. Godinez (1995)
37 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Estelle v. McGuire · Kolender v. Lawson · Illinois v. Allen
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 'that some measure [is] needed to maintain the security of the courtroom.' Second, the court must 'pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As in most judicial questions it is a matter of degree. If [the defendant] had been bound and gagged * * *, the impact upon him and his defense would have been so pervasive that the error in permitting such a practice would not be susceptible of harmless-error analysis. The chaining here, however, did not reach this degree of restraint. Consequently, we apply the general rule: Where “the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless error analysis.” * * * Chaining, while odious and a last resort, does not strip a trial of its basic elements and, in this less extreme form, is susceptible of harmless error analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Shoen“(1) shackles may reverse the presumption of innocence by causing jury prejudice; (2) shackles may impair the defendant's mental faculties; (3) shackles may impede communication between the defendant and his counsel; (4) shackles may detract from the decorum of the judicial proceeding; (5) shackles may cause pain to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morgan v. Bunnell
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.