United States v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 271 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Miles (2002), United States v. Willaman (2006)
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1361 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · Maness v. Meyers · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence: (1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to— (A) delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant; (F) 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. (H) delay resulting from transportation of any defendant from another district, or to and from places of examination or hospitalization, except that any time consumed in excess of ten days from the date an order of removal or an order directing such transportation, and the defendant’s arrival at the destination shall be presumed to be unreasonable; (J) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Any period , of. delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to— (F) 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. (8)(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge ... jf the judge granted-such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the . defendant in a speedy trial. No' such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by.the court.in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection .unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here a witness is unquestionably important, and the government has a good faith belief that it will use that witness’s testimony at trial, that witness may be deemed “essential” for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. If, however, the witness’s anticipated testimony will be merely cumulative, or substantially irrelevant, that witness should be deemed nonessential.”
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.