United States v. Arrington’s Empirical Analysis
867 F.2d 122 · 1989
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Locascio (1993), United States v. Roldan-Zapata (1990)
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law)
Relies on Arizona v. Washington · Wheat v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · United States v. Josef Perez · Dewees v. United States
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the court had accepted [defendant’s] proffered waiver of conflict-free counsel, he would have been represented by counsel encumbered with a strong incentive to conduct the trial in a manner that would minimize counsel’s own exposure. This conflict would continue to exist even if all references to [counsel] were redacted from [the witness’] testimony, or if [the defendant] waived the presentation of any direct rebuttal to [the witness’] testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, he becomes more easily impeachable for interest and thus may be a less effective witness. Conversely, opposing counsel may be handicapped in challenging the credibility of the lawyer when the lawyer also appears as an advocate in the case. An advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective position of arguing his own credibility. The roles of an advocate and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“essential aim of the [Sixth] Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.”
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.