United States v. Punch’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 889 · 1983
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Kamer (1986), United States v. Green (1989)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · North Carolina v. Alford · McCarthy v. United States · Roberts 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s used in Dayton, the term 'entire failure' does not mean failure to make any mention of the charge whatsoever.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, . . . the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As for the first clause of the first requirement — that the judge personally inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and determine that he understands it — we are unable to state a simple or mechanical rule but offer some general observation that we hope will be helpful. For simple charges such as those in this case, a reading of the indictment, followed by an opportunity given the defendant to ask questions about it will usually suffice. Charges of a more complex nature, incorporating esoteric terms or concepts unfamiliar to the lay mind, may require more explication. In the case of charges of extreme complexity, an explanation of the elements of the offense like that given the jury in its instructions may be required; this, of course, is the outer limit, for if an instruction informs a jury of the nature of the charge sufficiently for it to convict the defendant of it, surely it informs the defendant sufficiently for him to convict himself. We can do no more than commit these matters to the good judgment of the court, to its calculation of the relative difficulty of comprehension of the charges and of the defendant’s sophistication and intelligence.”
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.