United States v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.2d 508 · 1986
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably United States v. Gonzalez (1990), United States v. Aichele (1991)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Bell v. United States · United States v. McConney · Stafford v. Oklahoma
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.
“[P]lea bargaining is an approved method of encouraging guilty pleas by offering a defendant the certainty of a lesser punishment or the possibility of a more severe punishment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a defendant voluntarily chooses to reject or withdraw a plea bargain, he retains no right to the rejected sentence. If defendants could demand the same sentence after standing trial that was offered in exchange for a guilty plea, all incentives to plead guilty would disappear. Defendants would lose nothing by going to trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government divided 124 shipments into five counts which each include a series of related transactions and which each meet the jurisdictional amount. While all the shipments are part of one overall scheme, the government is not limited to charging only one count of violating [the illegal transportation statute]. The indictment did not divide a single transportation into multiple offenses, but rather treated each series of transportations occurring within a specified time period as a separate offense. Since the appellants concede the logic of charging the transportations to different cities as different offenses, and since [prior case law] allows subdivision of an overall scheme into its constituent parts, we have no difficulty endorsing the subdivision of the overall scheme in this case on a chronological basis.”
2 later decisions 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.