United States v. Needles’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 652 · 1973
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Riggins (1977), United States v. Concepcion (1992)
78 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5871 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Santobello v. New York · McCarthy v. United States · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · Townsend v. Burke
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is well-established that a sentencing court may weigh such factors as arrests for other crimes. As noted by the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, the function of the sentencing court is to acquire a thorough grasp of the character and history of the defendant before it. The court's consideration ought to encompass negative as well as favorable data. Few things can be so relevant as other criminal activity of the defendant [.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It does not follow, however, that an evidentiary hearing must be held whenever a defendant asserts the falsity of some statement in his pre-sentence report. The sentencing process is designed to encourage the court to take into account a broad array of factors bearing on the nature of both the crime and the defendant. See Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. at 248-50 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 . As such, it does not lend itself to the procedural formality of a trial; there is no definitive set of criteria and no required weight to be allocated to each consideration; many of the matters reviewed cannot be measured, quantified, proved or disproved; and some come from confiden tial sources. Hence it has not been required that each statement in a pre-sentence report be established or refuted by presentation of evidence.” Id. at 657-58 (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“misinformation or misunderstanding that is materially untrue regarding a prior criminal record, or material false assumptions as to any facts relevant to sentenc- in'g, renders the entire sentencing procedure invalid as a violation of due process.”
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.