United States v. Lott’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 1231 · 2002
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably State v. Henderson (2005), United States v. Porter (2005)
61 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 45 U.S.C. § 856
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Gideon v. Wainwright
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court 's failure to appoint new counsel when faced with a total breakdown in communications may ... constitute a denial of counsel .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defendant must show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown of communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict. Good cause for substitution of counsel consists of more than a mere strategic disagreement between a defendant and his attorney. [Rjather, there must be a total breakdown in communications. To prove a total breakdown in communication, a defendant must put forth evidence of a severe and pervasive conflict with his attorney or evidence that he had such minimal contact with the attorney that meaningful communication was not possible. Our cases instruct us in making this assessment to look at whether (1) the defendant’s request was timely; (2) the trial court adequately inquired into defendant’s reasons for making the request; (3) the defendant-attorney conflict was so great that it led to a total lack of communications precluding an adequate defense; and (4) the defendant substantially and unreasonably contributed to the communication breakdown.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) If the sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is less than the total punishment, then the sentence imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run consecutively, but only to the extent necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment. In all other respects, sentences on all counts shall run concurrently, except to the extent otherwise required by law.”
3 later decisions 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.