United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.2d 954 · 1942
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2013 · most notably Johnson v. United States (1943), Commonwealth v. Lopinson (1967)
11 federal appellate · 13 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Diaz v. United States · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah
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.
““The question which we have before us in the instant case is one which is extremely difficult to answer. Obviously it is not necessary for a defendant to be present at every stage of the proceedings against him. Due process does not require him to be in court when a true bill is returned against him by a grand jury or when his appeal is argued in the appellate court [citations]. The defendant must be in' court when jurors are challenged [citations]. Certainly the defendant must be present when the jury is in the box ■and the trial is in progress. The defendant must be deemed to have the absolute right to hear everything which the jury hears if he is to protect himself. Under such circumstances his presence bears a relation ‘reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend’. To exclude him from the court room upon such occasions would be to hazard his constitutional rights upon the theory an appellate tribunal might save him from jeopardy. He must be present when the jury is present and is receiving evidence. If he is, then the trial meets the substance of the stringent test laid down by Mr. Justice Roberts in his dissenting opinion in the Snyder case [Snyder v. Massachusetts], 291 U.S. [97] at page 129 [ 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 ] * * *. Mr. Justice Roberts stated that the prisoner’s constitutional right of presence ‘ * * * comprehend[s] the inquiry by the ordained trier of fact from beginning to end’ 'x‘ * *. In the instant case it appears that the defendant was prese”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Now, ladies and gentlemen, can you believe that man told you the truth about anything on the witness stand when he admits that he got numbers money in 1938 but won’t tell you who he got it from on the ground it would incriminate him? If you can believe that that man is innocent of this charge when he stands right up in front of you and says he cannot answer a question about 1938, that he just got through answering for 1937 on the ground it would incriminate him, well, then, I just don’t get it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“You may advise him of his rights, of course, but it is for him to determine whether or not he wishes to take advantage of them.”
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.