United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Furthermore, in dealing with guilty pleas, we have not hesitated to uphold a conviction when the providence inquiry clearly establishes guilt of an offense different from but closely related to the crime to which the accused has pleaded guilty. [Citing Graves and Felty.] If Wright was not the principal, he was an accessory after the fact to the larceny. See Art. 78, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 878 . For this offense, the maximum confinement authorized is only one-half that which may be adjudged for larceny. See n. 2, Table of Maximum Punishments, para. 127(c), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). Because the convictions of larceny and of forgery were treated by the judge as multiplicious for sentencing, the ceiling on maximum punishment employed by the judge would have been the same in the event of a conviction for being an accessory. Thus, appellant has little cause for complaint.”

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