United States v. Dorszynski’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 849 · 1973
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1995 · most notably Dorszynski v. United States (1974), Fruchtman v. Kenton (1976)
28 federal appellate · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Ex parte Hudgings · United States v. Waters · United States v. Webb
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a court advises the defendant that by pleading guilty he is waiving his rights to trial by jury and to confront the witnesses against him,'a ritualistic question to a defendant asking if he understands that he is waiving his right against self-incrimination' is unnecessary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is evident from the record that the judge determined that the petitioner was guilty of perjury, an offense punishable under 18 U.S.C. ง 1621. Although the petitioner was not formally charged with that offense nor afforded a trial to determine his guilt, he was in a very practical sense convicted โ in the mind of the judge โ and punished by the revocation of his probation. The only condition of the petitioner's probation prescribed at the time of sentence that is relevant was that he should `refrain from violation of any law [federal, state, and local].' rule 32(f) provides that probation should be revoked only after a hearing `at which the defendant shall be present and appraised of the grounds on which such action is proposed.' It is highly questionable whether the procedure by the rule was observed even in a rudimentary sense in the situation before us. But bypassing that and assuming that the petitioner did testify falsely, such conduct did not violate any of the specified conditions of his probation. Only upon being accused of and convicted of perjury in accordance with procedural due process would the petitioner have violated the condition of probation referred to above. We appreciate the sense of outrage that the district judge apparently experienced upon becoming convinced that the petitioner had not testified truthfully. False swearing, however, not only is a serious offense, legally and morally, but also its proof must be established, if legal consequences are”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peltier v. State“The trial judge indicated that he believed that the petitioner had testified falsely. He denied the motions and then requested counsel to show cause why the probation should not be terminated for lying under oath. After defense counsel argued against this action, the judge terminated the petitioner's probation and committed him to custody. This court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail pending appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peltier v. State
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.