United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 247 · 1976
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably Willcher v. United States (1979), Richardson v. United States (1978)
24 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 495 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McCarthy v. United States · MacHibroda v. United States · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Fontaine v. United States · Charbonier v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he accuracy and truth of an accused’s statements at a Rule 11 proceeding in which his guilty plea is accepted are “conclusively” established by that proceeding unless and until he makes some reasonable allegation why this should not be so. Stated otherwise, we hold that a defendant should not be heard to controvert his Rule 11 statements in a subsequent § 2255 motion unless he offers a valid reason why he should be permitted to depart from the apparent truth of his earlier statement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a district court is not required 'to conduct an evidentiary hearing on allegations which amount[ ] to no more than a bare contradiction of statements petitioner made when she [or he] pled guilty.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the instant case the district court was not required to conduct an evidentia-ry hearing on allegations which amounted to no more than a bare contradiction of statements petitioner made when she pled guilty. [Citation omitted.] If the allegations had gone beyond matters covered in the Rule 11 proceedings or were supported by credible affidavits that raised substantial inference that an un-kept plea bargain was in fact made, section 2255 would ordinarily require a hearing. [Citation omitted.]”
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.