Thompson v. United States, 414 U.S. 918 (1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Thompson v. United States, 414 U.S. 918 (1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1990 · …a show of lenience to those who exhibit contrition by admitting guilt does not carry a corollary that the judge indulges in a policy of penalizing those who elect to stand trial. ⚠ not in text
42 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Victor Johnson, Michael Joiner, and Melvin Buford (ca7, 1990-06-04) · Strongest negative: Donald Kilsmuth Hess and Louis Clifton Hess. v. United States (ca8, 1974-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Donald Kilsmuth Hess and Louis Clifton Hess. v. United States (2×)
8th Cir. · 1974 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. United States v. Thompson, 476 F.2d 1196, 1201 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 918 , 94 S.Ct. 214 , 38 L.Ed.2d 154 (1973); United States v. Jansen, 475 F.2d 312, 319 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826 , 94 S.Ct. 130 , 38 L.Ed.2d 59 (1973); United States v. Leh man, 468 F.2d 93, 109-110 (7th Cir. 1972); Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 529-530 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960 , 90 S.Ct. 434 , 24 L.Ed.2d 424 (1969).
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Victor Johnson, Michael Joiner, and Melvin Buford (2×)
7th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
a show of lenience to those who exhibit contrition by admitting guilt does not carry a corollary that the judge indulges in a policy of penalizing those who elect to stand trial.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Eric Parker, Gary Phillips, and Keith Moon (2×)
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accord United States v. Gonzalez, 897 F.2d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir.1990) (“possibility of leniency in the statute does not make denial of lenient treatment impermissible [under the Fifth Amendment] where the district court determines that the defendant has failed to exhibit the requisite contrition”); United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 826 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (denial of leniency for contrition to one who is not contrite does not violate Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3172 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1989); see also United States v. Thompson, 476 F.2…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Waverly Thompson
v.
United States
72-1498.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1973.
414 U.S. 918
1973 U.S. LEXIS 1039
Douglas, Stewart.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (3)
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

The petitioner here was convicted in District Court of conspiring to transport forged securities in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 2314, and of aiding and abetting the substantive crime. The trial judge's instruction to the jury did not clearly require that it find that defendant had knowledge of the interstate character of the transaction. Regardless of whether the substantive count requires such knowledge, it seems clear that[*919] the conspiracy offense would. See the opinion of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Crimmins, 123 F. 2d 271, 273 (CA2 1941). Moreover, here as in Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837 (1973), we deal with an offense traditionally treated as a local law question; it becomes federal only through the nexus with interstate commerce. See my dissenting opinion in Barnes v. United States, supra, p. 848. Proof of that nexus is therefore required for conviction. I would grant certiorari.