United States v. Drummond’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.2d 1049 · 1975
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Babich v. United States · Strunk v. United States · PepsiCo, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · United States v. DeLeo
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)oth the United States Attorney and the judge to whom a ( )trial is assigned should closely monitor its progress”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he prosecution was ready to try Drummond again without undue delay and obviously misapprehended the change brought about by the Eastern District Plan adopted a few months before. The new Rule [6] was a departure from the former requirement of prosecutorial readiness only, which still permeated the rest of the Plan. Rule 6 does not mention any sanctions and was adopted without any published focus on the change for retrials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he court has sole responsibility for setting and calling causes for trial. . . . " 1973 Rule 9(a); 1975 Rule 10(a). All of the plans provide: "A demand by a defendant is not necessary for the purpose of invoking the rights conferred by these rules.”
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.