Mack v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
635 F.2d 20 · 1980
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. McGill (1993), United States v. Kobrosky (1983)
66 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McCarthy v. United States · Houltin v. United States · United States v. Timmreck · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc.
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the district court informed Mack of the charges, it did not determine that the defendant understood the nature of the charges. Simply informing a defendant of the charges does not “establish on the record that the court personally determined that the defendant understood the charges.” United States v. Wetterlin, 583 F.2d at 350 n.6. Furthermore, “[r]outine questioning or a single response by the defendant that he understands [the nature] of the charge is insufficient,” Woodward v. United States, 426 F.2d 959 , 962 (3d Cir. 1970). The court should “engage in extensive an interchange as necessary to assure itself and any subsequent reader of the transcript that the defendant does indeed fully understand the charges.” United States v. Coronado, 554 F.2d at 173.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the core of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 is the policy that a court should not accept a guilty plea unless it determines that the plea is voluntary and the defendant understands the nature of the charges.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, in addition to directing the judge to inquire into the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, Rule 11 also requires the judge to satisfy himself that there is a factual basis for the plea. The judge must determine “that the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged in the indictment or information or an offense included therein to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.” Requiring this examination of the relation between the law and the acts the defendant admits having committed is designed to “protect a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.””
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.