{
  "id": 1445692,
  "name": "Damien ECHOLS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Echols v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-01-08",
  "docket_number": "CR 94-928",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "323 Ark. 40"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "912 S.W.2d 11"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449617
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0497-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29367909094313993
    },
    "sha256": "2ff9953f4d67b0b69b58998079f57d13e1fa8ff2fc0b4d85c224c74c566b464d",
    "simhash": "1:082a82c26eec6fb7",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:17:29.924838+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Damien ECHOLS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Damien Echols was found guilty of three counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death on each of the three counts. His attorneys filed the record, abstracts, and briefs with the assignments of error including both the guilt-innocence and the penalty phases of the trial. Echols, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting that this court consider only the guilt-innocence points of appeal and not the arguments involving the death penalty. On July 17, 1995, we remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of whether appellant had been advised by counsel of the consequences of abandoning the points of appeal concerning the death penalty and whether appellant was competent to make a rational decision about abandoning the death penalty arguments. Echols v. State, 321 Ark. 497, 902 S.W.2d 781 (1995).\nAppellant has now filed a motion to withdraw his request that we not consider the death penalty issues and asks us to proceed with the full appeal. The Attorney General, in response, asks that we not yet recall the case, but instead asks that we leave the remand in effect for a factual determination by the trial court of appellant\u2019s competency, for the reason that the \u201cdevelopment of such a record will best protect the interests of the appellant and the State in future proceedings.\u201d The response has merit. Thus, we leave the remand in effect and will proceed with the appeal when the trial-court certifies its findings to us.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Damien ECHOLS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 94-928\n912 S.W.2d 11\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 8, 1996\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 67
}