Lott v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
280 F.2d 24 · 1960
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3 · 18 U.S.C. § 4 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Heflin v. United States · Pollard v. United States · United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. · United States v. Hark · United States v. Norris
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In considering the contention of the appellants that they were sentenced upon a determination of guilt based upon the evidence at the trial of the other defendants rather than upon their pleas of nolo contendere, a look at the record becomes desirable. What happened is this; during the proceedings for sentencing the court heard statements of counsel for the appellants seeking mitigation of punishment. In these statements references were frequent to matters which transpired at the trial of the other defendants. It was brought out that counsel for the appellants had a representative at the trial, taking notes, and reporting to counsel so that they knew, in the words of one of the attorneys ‘exactly what was testified, in substance.’ Two of the three appellants made statements on behalf of themselves. Character witnesses numbering five, seven, and five, for the respective appellants, testified. At the conclusion of the hearing the court stated, T have found each guilty of the felonies as contained in the grand jury indictment.’ Then followed an oral pronouncement by the court of the sentences. This hearing was on June 19, 1959. On June 22, 1959, the court entered, as to each appellant, a formal judgment and commitment. From them we quote; “ ‘It is adjudged that the defendant has been convicted upon his plea of nolo contendere of the offense of * * * and the Court having asked the defendant whether he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced, and no sufficient c”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Time for Taking Appeal. An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from, but if a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment has been made within the 10-day period an appeal from a judgment of conviction may be taken within 10 days after entry of the order denying the motion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“1. The indictment is insufficient. 2. Delay in sentencing resulted in a denial of due process. 3. The court was without jurisdiction to impose sentences on the pleas of nolo contendere after hearing the evidence presented at the trial of the other two jointly indicted defendants. 4. Defects in the formal written judgment of the court.”
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.