Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 F.3d 9 - United States v. Stantini

United States v. Stantini’s Empirical Analysis

85 F.3d 9 · 1996

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
5
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Quinones (2007), State v. Vega (2002)

32 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

3801996200020102020decided

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. § 1952B · 18 U.S.C. § 2255

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Glasser v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · Wood v. Georgia

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'that some plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic might have been pursued but was not and that the alternative defense was inherently in conflict with or not undertaken due to the attorney's other loyalties or interests.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Following oral argument, but without holding an evidentiary hearing, Judge Glasser denied the motion. The judge ruled that (1) insofar as the motion sought relief under Criminal Rule 33, it was untimely; and (2) insofar as the motion sought relief under § 2255, “[t]he submissions in support of [the motion] are facially insufficient” and therefore “a hearing is not warranted.” In support of the latter conclusion, the judge held that Stantini did not establish that, with respect to plea negotiations, Carnesi was laboring under an actual conflict of interest and that Carnesi’s alleged concerns about the effect of a Stantini guilty plea upon Mannino in the Southern District case were realistic. Further, Stantini had failed to demonstrate that a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic had not been pursued at trial because of Carnesi’s representation of Man-nino.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] defendant has suffered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment if his attorney has (1) a potential conflict of interest that resulted in prejudice to the defendant, or (2) an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected the attorney's performance.”
    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.