Rini v. Katzenbach’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.2d 697 · 1968
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2001
15 federal appellate · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Douglas v. People of State of California · Linkletter v. Walker · Mempa v. Rhay
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“relates to “the very integrity of the fact-finding process.” ... As we said in Mempa [v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S. Ct. 254, 19 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1967)], “the necessity for the aid of counsel in marshaling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case as to sentence is apparent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Paul““Sentencing is a crucial point in the criminal process at which counsel should be present, if the right is not waived. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 133-134 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967). This is especially so where, as here, there is an attempt to withdraw the plea of guilty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The absence of counsel was crucial, not only because of the attempt to withdraw the plea, but because counsel could have more expertly and eloquently raised facts in mitigation which [the defendant] unsuccessfully tried to bring to the court’s attention.””
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.