United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
962 F.2d 579 · 1992
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably United States v. Torres (2002), Skok v. State (2000)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United State v. Morgan · Zelazny v. Lyng · United States v. Ayala · United States v. Reyes · United States v. Kimberlin
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' Audita querela is not a wand which may be waved over an otherwise valid criminal conviction, causing its disappearance; rather, it provides relief from the consequences of a conviction when a defense or discharge arises subsequent to entry of the final judgment. The defense or discharge must be a legal defect in the conviction, or in the sentence which taints the conviction. Equities or gross injustice, in themselves, will not satisfy the legal objection requirement and will not provide a basis for relief.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to question the extent of the viability of audita querela given the availability of coram nobis and § 2255”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Creation of' a new equitable remedy in the federal post-conviction relief scheme raises serious constitutional concerns. See Reyes, 945 F.2d at 866 ; Holder, 936 F.2d at 5 . We have a delicately balanced system — one that depends on a separation of powers. In this instance, Congress is vested with the power to enact immigration legislation, including deportation standards. The executive is empowered to prosecute criminal offenses. Vacating a valid conviction through the purely equitable use of audita querela amounts to an end run around properly enacted immigration legislation and essentially rewrites § 241(a)(ll) of the Act, which provides for deportation of an alien convicted of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The courts may not tinker with this balance without sufficient statutory, or even historical, authority. Requiring a legal defect as a prerequisite to relief via audita querela assures us that the writ will not disturb this fine balance.”
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.