United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
788 F.2d 1232 · 1986
Citation profile
54
cited by 54 later decisions
August 1998
most recently cited
49 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Edwards v. Arizona · Solem v. Helm
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s [the appellant's] sentence was within the maximum provided by Congress, it is only subject to review on appeal for a manifest abuse of discretion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a thorough and extensive inquiry of [defendant] by asking [him] his age and degree of education; informing him of the crimes with which he was charged and the maximum possible sentences; determining that [he] understands] the nature of the charges; ascertaining that he ha[s] copies of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructing him to read them and to abide by them, whether read or not; and telling [him] that he would be expected to conduct himself in accordance with those rules.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“there is no constitutional right to a 'meaningful [i.e. harmonious] attorney-client relationship,' ... and therefore, the trial court did not offer Mitchell an impermissible choice by requiring him to proceed either pro se plus standby counsel or with an attorney he didn't like.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.