Brewer v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
997 F.2d 550 · 1993
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Barefoot v. Estelle · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Ford v. Wainwright
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“state's original finding of competence). While a petitioner's evidence should always be presumed true in advance of an actual evidentiary hearing in which proper credibility, determinations, weighing, and cross-examination may take place, see Card, supra, it is particularly important that courts not pre-judge psychiatric evidence. Psychiatric opinions which are not subject to cross-examination simply cannot be evaluated by a factfinder. See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 415 , 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2604 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986); cf. id. at 412 , 106 S.Ct. at 2603 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewer v. Lewis“as to defendant's competence). Such a doubt may of course be raised by evidence which would not itself carry the burden of proving a defendant's incompetence; the question instead is whether evidence has been adduced which warrants further inquiry into the defendant's competence to effect a waiver. See Bailey v. Spears, 847 F.2d 695, 696 (11th Cir.1988) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing where petitioner's evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewer v. Lewis“Brewer's conviction or sentence. Yet the panel majority refused to grant Mrs. Brewer's application for an automatic stay on the ground that Rule 22-3 may not be invoked by a next-friend petitioner until after he or she has established next-friend standing. The panel's view clashes with both the plain meaning and the purpose of the Rule. The Rule provides for an automatic stay upon application of a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Brewer v. Lewis
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.