United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rule 11(e) as proposed permits each federal court to decide for itself the extent to which it will permit plea negotiations to be carried on within its own jurisdiction. No court is compelled to permit any plea negotiations at all. Proposed Rule 11(e) regulates plea negotiations and agreements if, and to the extent that, the court permits such negotiations and agreements.” (Emphasis Supplied). H.Rep. No. 94-247, 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News p. 678. In our opinion each individual judge is free to decide whether, and to what degree, he will entertain plea bargains, and his refusal to consider any plea bargaining whatsoever will not vitiate a guilty plea which has otherwise been knowingly and voluntarily entered.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Yielding · U.S. v. Walker

2. “(e) Plea Agreement Procedure. (1) In General. — The attorney for the state and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty, or nolo con-tendere to a charged offense or to a lesser or related offense, the attorney for the state will do any of the following: (A) Move for dismissal of other charges; or (B) Make a recommendation or agree not to oppose the defendant’s request, for a particular sentence, with the understanding that such recommendation or request shall not be binding upon the court; or (C) Agree that a specific sentence is the appropriate disposition of the case; or (D) Agree not to seek additional indictments or information for other known offenses arising out of past transactions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 W. Va. 72 - State Ex Rel. Forbes v. Kaufman · United States v. Ewing

3. “Rule 11(e)(3) prohibits a district court from sentencing a defendant to a sentence less severe than that provided for in the plea agreement accepted by the court. It is true that the Advisory Committee’s Notes state that ‘[subdivision (e)(3) makes it mandatory, if the court decides to accept the plea agreement, that it inform the defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided in the plea agreement, or one more favorable to the defendant,’ Notes of the Advisory Committee on the 1974 Amendment to Rule 11 (emphasis added). The actual text of 11(e)(3), however, states only that the district court must inform the defendant that it will embody in the sentence the disposition provided in the plea agreement. The legislative history of 11(e)(3) shows that Congress wished to preclude a district court from accepting a plea agreement which provides for a specific sentence and then imposing a more lenient sentence than that provided for in the plea agreement. The version of 11(e)(3) proposed by the Supreme Court in 1974 stated that ‘the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in the ... sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement or another disposition more favorable to the defendant than that provided for in the plea agreement.’ The House Judiciary Committee then deleted the language ‘or another disposition more favorable to the defendant than that provided for in the plea agreement/ and the House affirmed the committee’s ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 W. Va. 72 - State Ex Rel. Forbes v. Kaufman