Davis v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 261 · 1977
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably 382 So. 2d 673 - Meeks v. State (1980), Wallace v. Turner (1983)
11 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Barker v. Wingo · American Tobacco Co. v. Green · Martinez v. Rodriquez · United States v. Frontero
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Federal courts review by habeas corpus errors of constitutional dimension. In this case we are asked to examine a Florida procedural rule. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is there found a right to be brought to trial within 180 days. Although there is a right to a “speedy” trial found in the Sixth Amendment this right is “a more vague concept than other procedural rights.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2187 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). In Barker the Supreme Court identified some of the factors to be considered in determining whether there had been a denial of a speedy trial. Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant were the guidelines set by the Court. Weighing all these factors, this Court is of the opinion that Davis has failed to establish a denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. While he may have shown a denial of the Florida guarantee to be tried within 180 days, if he could count on one state court of appeals rather than another, this is merely a violation of a state procedural rule which does not in any way go to the fundamental fairness of the trial. As such it is not reviewable by the Federal Courts on a petition for habeas, (emphasis added, footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record shows that counsel for [defendant] conferred with him ... and discussed the possible sentences.... Even if we accept [defendant’s] allegation that the Court failed to advise him specifically of all of the rights he waived in pleading guilty, that failure does not of itself render the plea involuntary.”). 11 . Burdick, 504 F.3d at 547 . We are not alone among circuits in this view. See, e.g., Pardue v. Burton, 26 F.3d 1093 , 1096 (11th Cir.1994) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burton v. Terrell“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Turner
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.