United States v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis
7 F.3d 81 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Bucci v. United States (2011), Swazo v. Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden (1994)
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Bell v. Watkins · Lamb v. Estelle
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[tjhere are not two species of hearings. If the judge believes that an evidentiary hearing is needed to dispose of the case, then he has decided that a hearing is required. Until the judge decides to hold a hearing, he has discretion over whether to appoint counsel. However, if an evidentia-ry hearing is held, the judge shall appoint counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is difficult to accurately assess whether it was harmless error to deny counsel on the basis of a record developed at an evidentiary hearing conducted in the absence of that counsel. One can only speculate on what the record might have been had counsel been provided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f an evidentiary hearing is required the judge must appoint counsel for a petitioner who qualifies .... Appointment of counsel at this stage is mandatory ....”
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.