121 F. Supp. 2d 1344 - United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Alderman v. United States · Scott v. United States · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life · Easter House v. United States · Wrenn v. Gould
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Disclosure of progress reports is not necessary in order to determine whether the government complied with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2510 , et seq. Progress reports are, for the most part, a summary of information already provided to defendants, i.e. the tapes, summaries and logs. Those items already provided to defendants are the original and best sources of information regarding statutory compliance. Addressing defendants’ claims that progress reports might contain Brady, Jencks or Rule 16 material, it must be remembered that such reports are, for the most part, summaries of interceptions and do not provide any statements or exculpatory information not also required to be disclosed in its original form.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The case law shows that the defendants and the district courts generally gain access to information that is only available from monitor log sheets or related database printouts in addressing and deciding minimization challenges, in particular, in arriving at the percentages ■ of non-pertinent calls and minimized calls. The government narrowly, reads this body of cases as going to what the government must provide in order to avoid a minimization hearing as opposed to what the law requires in discovery ... ... [T]he court believes what must be produced and when it should be produced are issues fully committed to this court’s sound discretion.... In the interests of fairness and expedition, the court will direct the government to provide the moving defendants with the monitor log sheets, with proper redactions, within twenty days of this order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.