United States v. DeMichael’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.2d 1059 · 1982
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. Whaley (1987), United States of America v. Darhee Gray McKissick (2000)
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Santobello v. New York · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Blackledge v. Allison · Blackledge v. Perry · 96 Wis. 2d 211 - Fahrenberg v. Tengel
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'based upon the normal factors ordinarily considered in determining what course to pursue.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Ujnder our federal system there can be simultaneous federal and State prosecutions where similar or identical offenses under the two systems of law are committed as the result of particular conduct on the part of a defendant. Moreover, there is nothing more than exercise of normal prosecutorial discretion involved if the prosecuting attorney is satisfied to drop one prosecution if an adequate result is obtained in the other, or decides to proceed in the second case if an inadequate result is obtained in the first.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“From the foregoing summary gleaned from the transcript, it seems clear that the defendant knowingly and intentionally waived his right to jury trial. The contention in this Court to the contrary is an obvious afterthought. He sat through and took part in steps specifically designed to eliminate the impending jury trial and empower the Court to dispose of the case on the basis of stipulated facts, preserving for appellate review the defenses upon which he really relied..... It is true that we feel misgivings in the departure from the normal practice of requiring that jury trial be waived “in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government” in accordance with FRCrP 23(a). In substance and fact, however, there was a waiver in writing, signed by the defendant, and approved by the Court and the Government. It would be adhering to form over substance, in view of the circumstances of the case at bar, to insist upon an additional separate piece of paper and further colloquy. We think it proper to emphasize, however, that the proper practice, which should uniformly be observed in the absence of unusual circumstances, is as stated in U.S. v. Scott, 583 F.2d 362 , 364 (7th Cir.1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.