United States v. Bartram’s Empirical Analysis
407 F.3d 307 · 2005
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A plea of guilty submits the defendant to fact finding by the judge, rather than the jury.... For over 200 years, the trial courts have had jurisdiction to fix sentences, except in peculiar circumstances such as the present death penalty statute. Certainly this includes the authority for the judge to find facts unless otherwise prohibited. Booker has not changed that. ... The district court did not err in its fact finding because the facts were based on the defendant’s own admissions. Therefore, we are of opinion and hold the defendant’s argument under Blakely to be without merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]ecause there was no Sixth Amendment violation in this case, all facts being admitted under the guilty plea or expressly in open court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Isaacks
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.