Bontkowski v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 306 · 1988
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. Pollard (1992), Scott v. United States (1993)
68 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Murray v. Carrier · Engle v. Isaac · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Hill v. United States · Blackledge v. Allison
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]on-constitutional issues which could have been raised on appeal but were not, are barred on collateral review--regardless of cause and prejudice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that a trial would be hard on his family. A criminal trial is a very upsetting event for a family. That it played heavily in Paul's decision to plead guilty does not make counsel's advice coercive. Implicit in Paul's contention that his plea was coerced is that he would have not pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 1 The record refutes this contention. The district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy in which Paul responded that the plea was not coerced by threats or obtained by promises outside the plea agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the defendant's presence is not required.... Nothing the defendant could say would aid the court in modifying a sentence to conform to mandatory statutory requirements.... [M]odification of a sentence to include a mandatory special parole term does not provide a basis for a collateral attack.”
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.