Merritt v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.2d 739 · 1948
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 1975 · most notably United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy (1953), Audett v. United States (1959)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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.
Relationships
Relies on Screws v. United States · Betts v. Brady · William Garland v. State of Washington · United States v. Denniston · Moss v. Hunter
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Obviously, arraignment in accordance with Rule 10 is intended to be a safeguard for due processa pattern for a fair hearing. It is only when failure to observe this safeguard amounts to denial of due process, that the court is deprived of jurisdiction. The fair administration of criminal justice does not depend upon any such procedural niceties. See Garland v. State of Washington, supra [ 232 U.S. 642 , 34 S.Ct. 456 , 58 L.Ed. 772 ]; United States v. Denniston, supra [ 89 F.2d 696 ]. "Undoubtedly, arraignment can be competently and intelligently waived, as any other safeguardit was waived in this case, and the judgment should be affirmed." Merritt v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 170 F.2d 739, 741 (1948).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wester“"Due process does not require that one charged with a criminal offense shall be called upon to plead in his own behalf when he is represented by counsel who undertakes to act for him. Especially is this true, when as here, it is shown that the petitioner understood the charge against him, the nature and consequence of the plea in his behalf, and no prejudice is shown. See Garland v. State of Washington, 232 U.S. 642 , 34 S.Ct. 456 , 58 L.Ed. 772 ; United States v. Denniston, 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 696 , 110 A.L.R. 1296 , certiorari denied 301 U.S. 709 , 57 S.Ct. 943 , 81 L.Ed. 1362 ; Annotation 110 A.L.R. 1300 ." Merritt v. Hunter, 170 F.2d 739, 741 (1948).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wester“"Arraignment shall be conducted in open court and shall consist of reading the indictment or information to the defendant or stating to him the substance of the charge and calling on him to plead thereto. He shall be given a copy of the indictment or information before he is called upon to plead."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wester
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.