Berry v. Mintzes’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 1142 · 1984
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Towns v. Smith (2005), Worthen v. Meachum (1988)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Boykin v. Alabama · Marshall v. Lonberger · Henderson v. Morgan · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not compel a finding that [Petitioner] lacked knowledge of the true nature or substance of the charges to which he pleaded guilty. In Henderson v. Morgan, [ 426 U.S. 637 , 96 S.Ct. 2253 , 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976)], the Supreme Court stated: Normally the record contains either an explanation of the charge by the trial judge, or at least a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense has been explained to the accused. Moreover, even without such an express representation, it may be appropriate to presume that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit. 426 U.S. at 647 , 96 S.Ct. at 2258 . Accordingly, under Henderson, a defendant should be presumed to have been informed adequately by his counsel of the charge to which he pleaded guilty even when the record is devoid of an explanation of the charge by the judge or of a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the charge has been explained to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] party who does not appeal from a final decree of the trial court cannot be heard in opposition thereto when the case is brought here by the appeal of the adverse party. In other words, the appellee may not attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary, whether what he seeks is to correct an error or to supplement a decree with respect to a matter not dealt with below.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it taxes credibility to suggest that the paramount question of sentence, from the point of view of the accused, would have remained unexplored in the attorney/client conferences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riggins v. McMackin
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.