United States v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While our original opinion proceeded on the assumption that a district court’s failure to comply with Rule 11 would give rise to the same relief on collateral attack as on direct appeal, we are now persuaded to the contrary. Along with the Second, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, we agree that Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 , 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305 , 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (quoting from Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962)), establishes that “ ‘collateral relief is not available when all that is shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements’ of a rule of criminal procedure in the absence of any indication that the defendant was prejudiced by the asserted technical error.” Absent a mistake of constitutional or jurisdictional dimensions, “the appropriate inquiry [under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ] was whether the claimed error of law was a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice’____” 417 U.S. at 346 , 94 S.Ct. at 2305 (quoting from 368 U.S. at 428 , 82 S.Ct. at 468 ). Accordingly, our inquiry here is not simply whether Rule 11(c)(5) was observed; the record establishes that it was not. Rather, our inquiry is whether White suffers prejudice of constitutional magnitude as a result of non-observance of the rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stanford