Freeman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
350 F.2d 940 · 1965
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1982 · most notably McCarthy v. United States (1969), Ralston v. Robinson (1982)
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 5010 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Kercheval v. United States · Pilkington v. United States · Cunningham v. United States · Young Hee Choy 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mr. Peartree: [Assistant United States Attorney] Before such waiver is made, [waiver of prosecution by indictment] however, I would like to take this opportunity to explain your right to indictment to you. The substance of the charges contained in the magistrates complaint on file against you is a one-count violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 2312 which is the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. In the event of your conviction of these charges or this charge the punishment imposed upon you would be such as the Court deems proper under the law. The maximum penalty which the law provides in this instance is a five-year term of imprisonment or five thousand dollar fine or both or because of your age, that being 23, you could in the discretion of the Court be remitted to the custody of the Attorney General for a term of not more than six years under the Youth Corrections Act. Do you understand the nature of the charge and the maximum penalty which can be imposed on you should you be convicted? Defendant: Yes, I do.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * for a hearing to determine whether or not appellant was aware of the range of possible punishments under the Youth Corrections Act at the time of entering his plea so as to arrive at a determination of the voluntariness of his plea of guilty. If the Court finds that appellant fully understood the consequences of his plea of guilty, then his sentence should stand. If the Court finds that appellant was not cognizant of the full range of sentences possible under the Youth Corrections Act, then he should be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty, pursuant to Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or be afforded such other relief as the Court below may deem proper under the provisions of 28 USCA 2255 (1948)”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with the understanding of the nature of the charge.””
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.