United States v. Handa’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.3d 95 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Barker v. Wingo · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Ashe v. Swenson · Doggett 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with skepticism the government's call for us to import Double Jeopardy principles into our Sixth Amendment speedy trial jurisprudence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the additional charge and the charge for which the defendant was previously accused are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of the common scheme or plan previously charged, and (2) the government could have, with diligence, brought the additional charge at the time of the prior accusation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) 'the length of delay'; (2) 'the reason assigned by the government for the delay'; (3) 'the defendant's responsibility to assert his right'; and (4) 'prejudice to the defendant, particularly to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.'”
2 later decisions 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.