Rosecrans v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.2d 561 · 1967
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Goodwin (1974), United States v. Kenneth L. Musgrave and Marshall Womack (1973)
36 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1509 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Heflin v. United States · Wade v. Mayo · Knewel v. Egan · Goto v. Lane · David Busby v. William C. Holman, Warden, Kilby Prison
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While a form of attack on a sentence under § 2255, supra, is direct, the grounds therefor are limited to matters that may be raised on collateral attack. “Where there is an offense defined by a federal statute of which the court has jurisdiction and there is an endeavor to charge such offense by the indictment or information and the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the sufficiency of the indictment or information is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus or motion under § 2255, supra. “However, if the indictment or information attempts to charge a nonexistent federal offense, or as it is sometimes called, an impossible offense, as where it appears the offense sought to be charged, even if defined by state law or known to the common law, is not defined by federal statute, it affirmatively appears that no federal offense was committed, the indictment is subject to collateral attack.” 378 F.2d at 566 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A plea of guilty is not a mere admission or extrajudicial confession of guilt, but it is a conviction, and is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury. “The subsequent acquittal of Rosecrans’ five codefendants does not constitute a refutation of Rosecrans’ guilt, which he solemnly admitted by his plea of guilty. Such acquittal may have been the result of the failure of the United States to produce evidence at the trials satisfying the jury of the eodefendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or because of other reasons.” ( 378 F.2d at 567 )”
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.