United States v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In current federal practice, plea negotiations play a vital role. [There is] no reason why an 'ends of justice' continuance may not be granted in appropriate circumstances to permit plea negotiations to continue.” United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 445 (3d Cir.1994). But see United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000) (”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gottesfeld · 858 F. Supp. 2d 103 - United States v. Zaitar

2. “(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice. (ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. (iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex. (iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lynch

3. “Whether or not this additional delay fits within the language of § 3161(h)(1)(F), which excludes “delay resulting from any pretrial motion from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion,” it should be excluded. Clause (F) is but an illustration of the general language of § 3161(h)(1), which excludes “any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant.” That this language is meant to cover more than the examples provided in clauses such as (F) is made clear by the next few words: “including but not limited to,” and by the Senate’s Report which states, “the list (of proceedings concerning the appellant) is not intended to be exhaustive. It is representative of procedures of which a defendant might legitimately seek to take advantage for the purpose of pursuing his defense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 2d 55 - United States v. Castillo-Pacheco