Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.2d 371 · 1964
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Lokos v. Capps (1980), Houser v. United States (1974)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 2115 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Von Moltke v. Gillies · Hamilton v. Alabama · Johnson v. Stevenson · Ng Kam Fook v. P a Esperdy · Nickens 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We think * * * the trial court adequately protected the right of appellant to the assistance of counsel when it directed the entry of a plea of not guilty. No statement was made against the accused. He made no incriminating statement whatsoever, and was not called upon to waive assistance of counsel or any other constitutional right. He cannot, therefore, complain of the deprivation of any constitutional right at this [arraignment] stage of the proceedings.” [ 333 F. 2d at 373 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Failure to exercise extreme care to protect the rights of the accused at every step of the proceedings before and during trial may, and often does result in a costly and time-consuming post-conviction collateral attack. We ought to be as sure as we can that nothing is done or left undone to give rise to post-conviction complaints, based on the denial of constitutional safeguards to a fair and impartial trial.” Johnson, supra at 372-373.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“one who appears before the court with counsel employed for his defense is not deprived of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel merely because in retrospection he concludes that such representation did not meet his standards of effectiveness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Opie v. Meacham
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.