United States v. Windom’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 742 · 1996
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
August 2015
most recently cited
16 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Bailey v. United States · McNally v. United States · Yates v. United States · Lee v. Brown · Ayrs v. Yanik
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he rules of evidence do not apply and the sentencing judge is free to consider a wide range of evidence, including hearsay.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While it is true that a criminal defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on the basis of reliable information, it is well established that the evidentiary standards that apply to sentencing are not as stringent as those applicable in a criminal trial. The Criminal Code provides that: No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence. When sentencing a defendant, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come. So long as the information which the sentencing judge considers has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, the information may properly be taken into account in passing sentence. Provided that the facts contained in a PSR bear sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy, the district court may adopt them as support for its findings and conclusions regarding the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such a defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the less serious offense.”
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.