United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 833 · 1986
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · Ross v. United States · United States v. Avalos · United States v. Shaw
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a criminal defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before trial are not fully defined by the applicable statute of limitations. In United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 465 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971) and United States v. Lavasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795-96 , 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2051 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) the Supreme Court held that to sustain the burden of establishing that a due process violation has occurred, the defendant must show that (1) the preindictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defendant, and (2) such delay was an intentional device used by the government to obtain a tactical advantage over the accused. See United States v. Wehling, 676 F.2d 1053, 1059 (5th Cir.1982). To establish that actual prejudice has occurred, this Court in United States v. Shaw, 555 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir.1977), delineated certain factors to be considered in evaluating the effect of delay on a due process claim. According to Shaw , our "due process analysis must focus on factors such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay and the prejudice which the delay may have caused the accused." Id. at 1299 . Where, as here, the indictment or arrest occurred within the period allowed by the statute of limitations and the defendant alleges that the mere delay in the indictment or arrest violated his due process rights, the defendant has the burden of establishing that a due process violation has occurred. United States ”
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.