Cox v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 334 · 1973
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 3 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2002 · most notably Dorszynski v. United States (1974), 27 Cal. 4th 537 - Manduley v. Superior Court (2002)
46 federal appellate · 3 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 17 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Gault · Kirby v. Illinois · Kent v. United States · Carlson v. Landon
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To Cox, the consequences of a decision to prosecute him for bank robbery rather than for juvenile delinquency are the same, whether, within the remaining framework of the federal statutes, the decision is made by the Attorney General as a prosecutorial function or by a judge as a judicial function. Effects and consequences, however, are not the sole measure of the reach of the Bill of Rights. Judicial proceedings must be clothed in the raiment of due process, while the processes of prosecutorial decision-making wear very different garb. It is one thing to hold, as we have, that when a state makes waiver of a juvenile court's jurisdiction a judicial function, the judge must cast about the defendant all of the trappings of due process, but it does not necessarily follow that a state or the United States may not constitutionally treat the basic question as a prosecutorial function, making a highly placed, supervisory prosecutor responsible for deciding whether to proceed against a juvenile as an adult. If it does, as the United States has, the character of the proceeding, rather than its consequences to the accused, are largely determinative of his rights. "Many of the protections of the Bill of Rights extend far beyond the courtroom, of course, but the guaranty of a hearing found in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment has traditionally been limited to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It has never been held applicable to the processes of prosecutorial decision”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“when the question is one of waiver of jurisdiction of a juvenile court and it is to be decided by a judge of the juvenile court, it is clear that the juvenile is entitled to a hearing on the question of waiver and the assistance of counsel at the hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[to] explicitly find whether or not treatment under the Act would be beneficial to Cox. Should he find that it would not he, he should state his reasons, but leave the sentence undisturbed. . ( 473 F.2d at 337 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.