United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 185 · 1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Minnesota v. Murphy · Yagow v. United States · Babich v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mitchell opened herself up to the full range of possible sentences when she was told during her plea colloquy that the penalty for conspiring to distribute cocaine had a maximum of life imprisonment. While her reservation may have put the government to its proof as to the amount of drugs, her declination to testify on that issue could properly be held against her.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“retaining the privilege against self-incrimination as to one or more components of the crime while waiving it as to others. Ibid. Petitioner's reservation of the right to contest the amount of drugs attributable to her did not change the court's analysis. In the Court of Appeals' view: 12”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mitchell does not claim that she could be implicated in other crimes by testifying at her sentencing hearing, nor could she be retried by the state for the same offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.