Barnes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On Aug. 29, 1951, movant was sentenced by this court to two years imprisonment after his plea of guilty to an indictment charging that he ‘did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly move and travel in interstate commerce from New Orleans, La. * * * to Danville, Va., with intent on the part of the said Freddie Brant to avoid confinement and custody under the laws of Louisiana for the crime of armed robbery.’ 18 U.S.C., 1073, under which the indictment was brought, states, ‘Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign commerce with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution or custody or confinement after conviction under the laws of the place from which he flees, for * * * robbery * * * shall be imprisoned * * *.’ “In his motion, apparently made pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.O. 2255, movant contends that the indictment is deficient in that it does not contain the words ‘after conviction,’ that the indictment contains no allegation that the original crime was committed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and that the indictment does not contain the words ‘was held in custody or confinement.’ Movant also contends that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his sentence and that his request to have a psychiatrist appointed was ignored, that the indictment was not returned in open court, and that he pleaded guilty thereto through inadvertence and ignorance of the nature of the charge and of his rights. “In a collateral attack upon an indictment, as under 28 U.S.O. 225”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brant v. United States

2. ““ * -x- * we agree the second and third counts of the information were defective, but we cannot agree that they, or either of them, were or are subject to collateral attack or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence now challenged. This case is ruled by Keto v. United States, 8 Cir., 189 F.2d 247 , 251, and Rowley v. United States, 8 Cir., 191 F.2d 949 , 951. It is only under exceptional circumstances that the sufficiency of an indictment or information may he made the subject of a collateral attach after conviction.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. United States

3. “"That on or about the fourth day of December, 1954, Jonathan Gregori did knowingly transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce, a woman or girl, to-wit, Gwendolyn, Lnu, by means of a common carrier, to-wit, an airplane, from Fort Worth, in the State of Texas, to Jacksonville, in the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery; in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 2421.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gregori v. United States