Putnam v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.2d 313 · 1964
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Walters v. Harris (1972), Crow v. United States (1968)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on MacHibroda v. United States · Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Yates v. United States · Pelley 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Putnam alleged in his motion that the guilty plea was induced by a promise that he would be deported rather than imprisoned if he would plead guilty. It is not entirely clear from the record whether this promise is alleged to have been made by his court-appointed attorney, by the prosecutor or some other government official or by the trial judge. In any event, such an allegation of fact must ordinarily be accepted as true, but that is not so where the allegation is contradicted by the files and records before the court. Pelley v. United States, 7 Cir., 214 F.2d 597 , cert. denied, 348 U.S. 915 , 75 S.Ct. 296 , 99 L. Ed. 718 ; United States v. Davis, 6 Cir., 319 F.2d 482 . We are of the opinion that the files and records in this case not only contradict Putnam’s allegation, but also show without question that appellant’s plea of guilty was entered voluntarily and knowingly with a full understanding of the nature of the charge and the possible penalty therefor, and was not the result of a promise of any kind.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pickett v. Oklahoma““In view of Lester’s (petitioner’s) interrogation at the time of plea, his denial of any inducement, his familiarity with the role of judge and prosecutor, reinforced by its recapitulation in his own case not long before, we think it would be utterly unreasonable to require a hearing on the voluntariness of Lester’s plea; for ‘the motion and the files and the records of the case’— particularly the meticulous questioning on acceptance of the plea — ‘conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’ ””
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.