Starks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
264 F.2d 797 · 1959
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1974 · most notably Houser v. United States (1974), Losieau v. Sigler (1969)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Mallory v. United States · Miller 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““So long as the inquiry suggested by the decisions in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , and Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 , is not meticulously made by the District Court, or, if made, is not made a part of the record in the ease, such contentions as that now made, however groundless, will continue to demand the time and energies of the courts. The fact that the inquiry of the defendant as to his understanding of his constitutional rights prior to his plea is not so searching as is desirable, however, does not always invalidate the proceeding. The defendant who seeks relief under § 2255 must still bear the burden of showing that he did not understand his constitutional rights. The fact that the written record, itself, does not contain an emphatic and direct answer to a claim that the court’s explanation was insufficient opens the door to subsequent collateral attack, but it does not necessarily mean that such collateral attack must be successful. We are entitled to look at the entire record, the nature of the charge, the defendant’s circumstances, his experience in court proceedings, and other relevant matters, and, if it then clearly appears, even without a hearing, that the defendant did not lack understanding of his constitutional rights, the petition should be denied.” 264 F.2d at 799-800.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fairly implies the availability of the assistance of the court in obtaining counsel if he wished it.”
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.