United States v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.2d 667 · 1988
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 1737 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Leon · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t appears that all nine members of the Court would require notice in the indictment and proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a fact that increases the punishment beyond the maximum set by the legislature for the elements of the offense.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The proposal before us today is crafted to avoid Federal prosecution of State burglary or robbery charges. This proposal does not even expand Federal criminal law. H.R. 6248 takes an existing gun possession statute and enhances the penalty for any violation by a person having been previously convicted three times for armed burglary and robbery. H.R. 6248 would apply the enhanced penalties of a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment of not less than 15 years, or both, in addition to the penalties for the underlying offense. These penalties would be applied to anyone possessing a firearm in violation of section 1202(a) to title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.App. 1202(a)). This person must have three previous convictions for burglary or robbery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“analysis was not intended to be the sole test for measuring whether a sentencing factor becomes an element of the offense. The McMillan Court made it clear that it was unable to lay down a bright line test for such statutes; the result being that the constitutionality of these statutes will necessarily turn on differences in degree. Furthermore, the Court specifically stated that Pennsylvania's act of taking one factor that has always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment and dictate”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.