Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 56 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ferrara v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ferrara v. United States Anchor | green | “representing to the court and the defense that the witness was going to confirm a story” | 10 |
| 2 | Aricidiacono v. State | green | “the defendants here submitted no evidence to suggest a natural inference that any misconduct at the ocme (or lack of knowledge of that conduct) coerced or otherwise induced the defendants to falsely plead guilty.” | 9 |
| 3 | Aricidiacono v. State | green | “were not in fact telling the truth when they freely admitted their factual guilt.” | 9 |
| 4 | United States v. Wilkins | green | “of the due process clause of the fifth amendment because of the government's failure to disclose the full range of dookhan's malfeasance.” | 8 |
| 5 | Class v. United States | green | “a guilty plea makes case-related constitutional defects that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction,” | 7 |
| 6 | Ferrara v. United States | green | “of the federal courts to have addressed post-conviction petitions under brady and ferrara in the wake of the dookhan scandal, not one has vacated a guilty plea.” | 5 |
| 7 | Aricidiacono v. State | green | “even if there was conduct at the ocme that could be said to be egregious, we have determined, in accordance with our prior reasoning in ira brown v. state and anzara brown v. state, that this conduct did not materially affect any of the pleas.” | 5 |
| 8 | Brown v. State | green | “there is no evidence to suggest that ocme employees tampered with drug evidence by adding known controlled substances they received for testing” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.