James W. Armstrong v. Charles E. Egeler, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.2d 796 · 1977
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably King v. Dutton (1994), State v. Andrews (2000)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boykin v. Alabama · Morrissey v. Brewer · North Carolina v. Alford · Brady 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. Malloy v. Hogan 378 U.S. 1 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 . Second, is the right to trial by jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 . Third, is the right to confront one’s accusers. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 . We cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State“Neither in the quoted language nor elsewhere in Boykin does it appear that a precise knowledge of all of the penal ramifications rises to the quality of a constitutional requirement.... [[Image here]] The requirement that a plea be intelligently and voluntarily made does not impose upon the trial judge a duty to discover and dispel any unexpressed misapprehensions that may be harbored by a defendant. This is especially true as to mistaken assumptions for which there is no reasonable basis. ... The district court was not bound to accept [defendant’s] testimony years later in the face of the colloquy which took place at the time of the plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried shall, if they find such person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder of the first or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession the court shall proceed by examination of witnesses to determine the degree of the crime, and shall render judgment accordingly . . . . ””
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.