Young v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““* * * it must also be conceded that a plea entered under these circumstances would not satisfy the literal requirements of Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim. P., as amended July 1, 1966, and that the application of the amended rule would mandate the vacation of the sentence in order to permit Young to plead anew. See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 . But the amended rule is not retroactive and the question here is whether it affirmatively appears that the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently in a manner to fully satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process. See Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831 , 89 S.Ct. 1498 , 23 L.Ed.2d 16 . And also see Jenkins v. United States, 10 Cir., 420 F.2d 433 , and Barber v. United States, 10 Cir., 427 F.2d 70 . Before the 1966 amendment Rule 11 did not require any ritual of words to insure an intelligent and voluntary plea. See Murray v. United States, 10 Cir., 419 F.2d 1076 . But being ever mindful of the gravity of a guilty plea, we have often stated in slightly different language that before accepting a plea of guilty, the sentencing court should either advise the defendant or be certain that he had been fully advised of the consequences of his plea. See Jenkins V. United States, supra, quoting Harper v. United States, 10 Cir., 368 F.2d 53 . And see also Wolcott v. United States, 10 Cir., 407 F.2d 1149 , and cases cited there.””

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