United States v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.3d 1188 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Olano · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · McCarthy 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the defendant must establish that (1) the district court committed error; (2) the error was plain-that is, it was obvious under current well-settled law; (3) the error affected the Defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he truth and accuracy of ... statements made at the Rule 11 proceedings should be regarded as conclusive in the absence of a believable, valid reason justifying a departure from the apparent truth of his Rule 11 statements.” Hedman v. United States, 527 F.2d 20, 22 (10th Cir. 1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“apply the plain error rule less rigidly when reviewing a potential constitutional error.”
2 later decisions 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.