Bye v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 177 · 1970
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Michel v. United States (1974), United States v. Couto (2002)
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 26 U.S.C. § 7237 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. United States · McMann v. Richardson · McCarthy v. United States · Halliday v. United States · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or with the [stated] consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily witli understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty, unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is therefore of no moment that parole generally can be characterized as a legislative grace, and that ineligibility of parole for narcotics offenders could be classified as the withholding of a legislative grace [footnote omitted]. See Smith v. United States, supra, [ 116 U.S.App.D.C. 404 ] 324 F.2d [436] at 441. Rule 11 is not concerned with the legislative genesis of the ineligibility for parole, but with the extent to which ineligibility for parole could influence an accused’s decision whether to plead guilty.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he unavailability of parole directly affects the length of time an accused will have to serve in prison. . It would seem that such a major effect on the length of possible incarceration would have great importance to an accused in considering whether to plead guilty.”
2 later decisions 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.