United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “In applying the third statutory factor, there is almost always some tension between the administration of the Act and the administration of justice. Indeed, defendants can always argue that the minimal sanction of dismissal without prejudice takes the teeth out of the Act’s requirements. In response, the government can always argue that reprosecution furthers the public’s interest in bringing criminals to trial. Even though these two standard arguments neutralize each other, this third factor is not always neutral. The third factor not only allows courts to review the seriousness of the criminal charges and the reason for the delayed indictment but also provides authority for considering such aggravating and mitigating factors as the length of the delay and the prejudice to the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Kim

2. “We review a claim under the Speedy Trial Act de novo and review a district court’s factual determinations on excludable time for clear error.”

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