United States v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 258 · 1985
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Infante (2005), Moss v. United States (2003)
34 federal appellate · 8 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. § 1623
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Wood v. Georgia · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · Bell v. United States · Bronston 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A conflict exists when defense counsel places himself in a position conducive to divided loyalties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Address each defendant personally and forthrightly advise him of the potential dangers of representation by counsel with a conflict of interest. The defendant must be at liberty to question the district court as to the nature and consequences of his legal representation. Most significantly, the court should seek to elicit a narrative response from each defendant that he has been advised of his right to effective representation, that he understands the details of his attorney’s possible conflict of interest and the potential perils of such a conflict, that he has discussed the matter with his attorney or if he wishes with outside counsel, and that he voluntarily waives his Sixth Amendment protections. Cf. United States v. Foster, 469 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1972). It is, of course, vital that the waiver be established by “clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous language.” National Equipment Rental v. Szukhert, [sic] 375 U.S. 311 [332], 84 S.Ct. 411 [423], 11 L.Ed.2d 354 , 367-8 (1964). Mere assent in response to a series of questions from the bench may in some circumstances constitute an adequate waiver, but the court should nonetheless endeavor to have each defendant personally articulate in detail his intent to forego this significant constitutional protection .... We hold only that if, as a matter of fact, a defendant after thorough consultation with the trial judge knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily wishes to waive this protection, the Constitution does not prevent him from so d”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The evidence and the inferences drawn from it are viewed in the light most favorable to the government.”
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.