United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 1302 · 2014
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Watts · Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · United States v. Cardenas · United States v. Roederer · United States v. Gay
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether delay attributable to a codefendant is reasonable, a court must examine all relevant circumstances. Our circuit has articulated three factors to guide district courts in this exercise: (1) whether the defendant is free on bond, (2) whether the defendant zealously pursued a speedy trial, and (3) whether the circumstances further the purpose behind the exclusion to 'accommodate the efficient use of prosecutorial and judicial resources in trying multiple defendants in a single trial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the delay is reasonable, an exclusion for delay attributable to one defendant is applicable to all co-defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] remand for resentencing generally allows the district court to conduct de novo review,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. U.S. v. Aragon
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.