United States v. Springer’s Empirical Analysis
51 F.3d 861 · 1995
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Lopez v. Thompson (2000), United States v. Gorman (2002)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 3056 (Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231
Relies on Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Watson v. United States · New York v. Ferber · Withrow v. Williams · Ruffalo v. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A competent election by the defendant to represent himself and to decline the assis tance of counsel once made before the court carries forward through all further proceedings in that case unless appointment of counsel for subsequent proceedings is expressly requested by the defendant or there are circumstances which suggest that the waiver was limited to a particular stage of the proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The retrial was obviously a continuation of the criminal prosecution, and the waiver was obviously intended to stand absent an attempt to withdraw it. The matter of representation was in [the defendant's] hands alone. After his earnest and insistent request, he had been granted the right to represent himself. If he found himself wavering in his resolve so to do, he or his advisory counsel could have so informed the court. He did not waver. His waiver of counsel stood.”
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.