United States v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis
267 F.2d 453 · 1959
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably United States v. Doyle (1965), Kimbrough v. Beto (1969)
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 659
Relies on Burns v. United States · United States v. Rappy · United States v. Maroy
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Well, the hearing today may have brought out in greater detail some of the factors which I had before me at the time of the imposition of sentence, but certainly has brought out no new evidence. Everything that was brought out here today was thoroughly and, I thought, quite ably discussed and stated to the Court by the attorney for the defendant at the-time of the original imposition of sentence s 7 observed at that time, I made the sentence then less than I otherwise would by reason of certain features to which I then alluded 2 an<^ ^ stiU my opinion that he is_ entitled to that consideration in view of those factors, “At that time I denied probation and I have heard nothing further at this hearing in addition to what was fully before me then. My decision is still the same, “The application for probation is denied and the sentence heretofore imposed is reimposed; that is to say, that on the judgment of guilty heretofore entered by this Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the defendant is now sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States to be incarcerated jn the penitentiary of the United States for a term of three years. * * * »”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the Probation Act extends to all defendants (with certain exceptions not here relevant) against whom a judgment of conviction is entered. It is obvious that such a judgment may follow either a plea of guilty or a trial on a plea of not guilty. However, under the standing policy announced by the district judge in this case, he does not consider an application for probation by a defendant who pleads not guilty and stands trial. While, in considering an application for probation, the court’s decision on whether or not probation shall be granted in any particular case, is seldom set aside except for abuse of discretion, the intention of Congress, under the Probation Act, requires that an application for probation by a defendant convicted of the offense involved in this case must be received and acted upon by the court, regardless of whether the conviction is based upon a plea of guilty or follows a trial ... (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) SENTENCE. Sentence shall be imposed without unreasonable delay. Pending sentence the court may commit the defendant or alter the bail. Before imposing sentence the court shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment.”
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.