Ventry v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.3d 102 · 2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wood v. Georgia · United States v. Jacobson · IIT v. Vencap, Ltd. · United States v. Levy · United States v. Schwarz
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Per se “conflicts ... are so severe that they are deemed per se violations of the Sixth Amendment. Such violations are unwaivable and do not require a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by his representation.” [United States v. Williams, 372 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2004) ]. Actual conflicts “oceur[ ] when the interests of a defendant and his attorney ‘diverge with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action,’ ” id. (quoting [United States v.] Schwarz, 283 F.3d [76,] 91 [(2d Cir.2002) ]), and violate the Sixth Amendment when counsel’s representation of the client is “adversely affect[ed]” by the existence of the conflict. Id. (citing United States v. Levy, 25 F.3d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1994)). Potential conflicts exist “if ‘the interests of the defendant may place the attorney under inconsistent duties at some time in the future,’ ” id. (quoting United States v. Kliti, 156 F.3d 150 , 153 n. 3 (2d Cir.1998)), and violate the Sixth Amendment when they “prejudice ... the defendant.” Id.”
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.