3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 60 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Estelle v. Smith.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Estelle v. Smith Anchor | green | “a criminal defendant, who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding.” | 34 |
| 2 | Estelle v. Smith | green | “when a defendant asserts the insanity defense and introduces supporting psychiatric testimony, his silence may deprive the state of the only effective means it has of controverting his proof on an issue that he interjected into the case.” | 13 |
| 3 | Buchanan v. Kentucky | green | “if a defendant requests such an evaluation or presents psychiatric evidence, then, at the very least, the prosecution may rebut this presentation with evidence from the reports of the examination that the defendant requested.” | 13 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.