Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 917 F.2d 181 - United States v. Kinsey

United States v. Kinsey’s Empirical Analysis

917 F.2d 181 · 1990

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
May 2006
most recently cited

33 federal appellate ·

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 Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson

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

  1. “To succeed on any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that: (1) the attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that except for the attorney’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Use of Certain Information (a) Where a defendant agrees to cooperate with the government by providing information concerning unlawful activities of others, and as part of that cooperation agreement the government agrees that self-incriminating information provided pursuant to the agreement will not be used against the defendant, then such information shall not be used in determining the applicable guideline range, except to the extent provided in the agreement. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not be applied to restrict the use of information: (1) known to the government prior to entering into the cooperation agreement; (2) concerning the existence of prior convictions and sentences in determining § 4A1.1 (Criminal History Category) and § 4B1.1 (Career Offender); (3) in a prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement; or (4) in the event there is a breach of the cooperation agreement by the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Reasoning that a presentencing interview is not a critical stage of the proceedings, this circuit has refused to recognize a right to counsel during a defendant's presentencing interview with a probation officer.”
    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.