United States v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3510 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 42 U.S.C. § 10606
Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Hughey v. United States · United States v. McVeigh
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving- the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the ease. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy. (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services [provided by law].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Of course, the fact that the CVRA may not mandate giving notice and participatory opportunities to such victims does not prohibit a court from doing so. Weighing the explicit view of the law's sponsors against the inference to be drawn from pre-existing case law, courts should consider erring on the side of caution ... Accordingly, I believe it is important to avoid the pitfall of seeking to determine who is "actually" a victim, cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(2), as a threshold for safeguarding the rights set forth in § 3771. Instead, I have taken and will continue to follow an inclusive approach: absent an affirmative reason to think otherwise, I will presume that any person whom the government asserts was harmed by conduct attributed to a defendant, as well as any person who self-identifies as such, enjoys all the procedural and substantive rights set forth in § 3771.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.