United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
738 F.2d 172 · 1984
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably United States v. North (1990), United States v. Doerr (1989)
78 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · Michelson v. United States · Michel 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“his testimony would have withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found [him] a credible witness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are loath to impose a judicial review on prosecutorial decisions such as the priority of cases for prosecution, yet we note that our balancing is a place of last resort for defendants whose cases have fallen between the prosecutorial cracks. An unintentional delay may work to the disadvantage of the government as well as the defendant, but the government can choose not to prosecute the ease. The due process clause should provide the defendant with a similar escape, but only where the balance of prejudice to the defendant against the reasons for delay, although unintentional, is so detrimental to the defendant’s case as to be patently unfair. The actual prejudice to the defendant, however, must be so substantial as to outweigh the preferable deference to legitimate prosecutorial priorities and bureaucratic realities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[O]ur standard of review limits us to determining whether the government's disclosure came so late as to prevent appellant from receiving a fair trial. We cannot say that disclosure came too late in this case. After appellant's counsel viewed the reports at trial, he could have asked for a continuance to contact the other owners and call them to testify, or he could have asked the court to make the reports part of the record.”
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.