9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 53 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 Andrew MacKey v. Michael Dutton, Warden.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Andrew MacKey v. Michael Dutton, Warden Anchor | green | “whether a reasonable judge, situated as was the trial court judge whose failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing is being reviewed, should have experienced doubt with respect to competency to stand trial.” | 8 |
| 2 | Hastings v. Yukins | green | “to trigger a reasonable doubt as to his or her competency.” | 7 |
| 3 | Antonio Franklin v. Margaret Bradshaw | green | “the due process right to a fair trial is violated by a court's failure to hold a proper competency hearing where there is substantial evidence of a defendant's incompetency.” | 6 |
| 4 | United States v. Miller | green | “the bar for incompetency is high” | 6 |
| 5 | Thirkield v. Pitcher | green | “to positively, unequivocally, and clearly generate a real, substantial and legitimate doubt as to his mental capacity” | 6 |
| 6 | Hastings v. Yukins | green | “can raise issues of both substantive and procedural due process.” | 6 |
| 7 | United States v. Margaret Knape Davis | green | “exhibited great difficulty in communicating and assisting with his defense.” | 5 |
| 8 | Thirkield v. Pitcher | green | “although retrospective determinations of competency are not prohibited, they are disfavored, and the court will give considerable weight to the lack of contemporaneous evidence of petitioner's incompetence.” | 5 |
| 9 | Antonio Franklin v. Margaret Bradshaw | green | “a state court determination of competence is a factual finding, to which deference must be paid.” | 4 |
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.