David Busby v. William C. Holman, Warden, Kilby Prison’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 75 · 1966
Citation profile
191 federal appellate · 1 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 292 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Brady v. United States (1970), Kimbrough v. Beto (1969)
191 federal appellate · 1 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Relies on MacHibroda v. United States · Kercheval v. United States · Crooker v. State of California · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Herman v. W Claudy · Cicenia v. Lagay
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 292 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if voluntarily and understandingly made, is conclusive as to the defendant's guilt, admitting all the facts charged and waiving all non-jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings against him.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In considering this contention of the appellant we must bear in mind that the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel does not require or permit the court upon a subsequent review to analyze counsel's mental proccesses in order to determine whether every conceivable avenue of evidence has been totally explored and every possible theory of defense has been pursued. United States ex rel. Boucher v. Reincke, 2 Cir.1965, 341 F.2d 977, 981 . It is not counsel who is on trial. There can be held to be a lack of the effective assistance of counsel only when it appears that counsel's assistance was so grossly inept as to shock the conscience of the court and make the proceedings a farce and a mockery of justice. Diggs v. Welch, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 5 , 148 F.2d 667, 669 . See, also, Monroe v. Huff, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 246 , 145 F.2d 249 ; Kinney v. United States, 10 Cir.1949, 177 F.2d 895 , and Rushing v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir.1959, 272 F.2d 633, 638 . Judge Minton well expressed the rule in United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 7 Cir.1948, 166 F.2d 976, 980 , as follows: "`* * * Whenever the court in good faith appoints or accepts the appearance of a member of the bar in good standing to represent a defendant, the presumption is that such counsel is competent. Otherwise, he would not be in good standing at the bar and accepted by the court. The constitutional requirements have been met as to the necessity for counsel. If the action of counsel in the presence of the co”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is well settled that a conviction, whether in a state or federal court, which is based upon an involuntary or coerced plea of guilty, whether it be unfairly obtained or given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence, is invalid as inconsistent with due process of law.”
2 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.