Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 FSUPP 847 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2015

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

1301988199020002010decided

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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3561 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 2 U.S.C. § 352 · 28 U.S.C. § 49 · 28 U.S.C. § 991

Relies on Baker v. Carr · Buckley v. Valeo · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Lockett v. Ohio · United States v. Nixon

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

  1. “In my view a colorable argument can be made that the scheme itself serves to erode and undermine the function of the judiciary within our legal system. The parties have argued this point only peripherally. The whole process of sentencing demands a delicate distribution of power amongst the three arms of government. As I have pointed out at disconcerting length above, the determination of the sentence for a particular offense is a legislative function. The imposition of sentence is clearly a judicial function. In this regard it is said to be no different from the rendering of any other judgment. United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 311 , 51 S.Ct. 113, 115 , 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931). As such, there is a fine line between the two aspects of the process. The legislature may clearly specify a mandatory sentence for an offense. The legislature may, at least according to current jurisprudence, delegate to the executive some of its functions in this regard. But at some point the place of the judiciary within the process must be accounted for and a line must be imposed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “I strongly question whether the rigid calculations a judge must administer and follow in the case of each defendant under this scheme is commensurate with any of these descriptions of judicial power. I strongly question whether a detailed scheme of the nature of these guidelines really amounts to no more than a general mandatory sentence, or whether it amounts in fact to a predetermination of each individual’s sentence by a body other than the judiciary. I strongly question whether these guidelines are designed to assist a judge in making the most difficult of decisions, or whether it amounts to a legislative instruction as to how those decisions must be made. In short, I strongly doubt whether this scheme, even if stripped of its technical deficiencies can pass general constitutional muster, if it can, then I strongly doubt the continued vitality of principles of judicial independence, fairness of procedure and individual justice for individual citizens. These are concepts, I fear, which no computer data banks can comprehend.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Parliament, in the exercise of its legislative power, may make a law imposing limits upon the discretion of the judges who preside over the courts by whom offenses against that law are tried to inflict on an individual offender a custodial sentence the length of which reflects the judge’s own assessment of the gravity of the offender’s conduct in the particular circumstances of the case. What Parliament cannot do, consistently with the separation of powers, is to transfer from the judiciary to any executive body whose members are not ... [judicial officers] ... a discretion to determine the severity of the punishment to be inflicted upon an individual member of a class of offenders.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.