United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[O]n an ordinary motion for a new trial the court is concerned with the probable effect which the newly discovered evidence might have had upon another trial. In contrast, where the motion is based upon false swearing, the concern of the court must be as to the probable effect produced on the trial already had. In the former case, the court looks to the future, in the latter to the past, and the sole question is whether the defendant’s right to a fair trial has been prejudiced by reason of the false testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Caldwell

2. “There is no way for a court to determine that the perjured testimony did not have controlling weight with the jury, and, notwithstanding the perjured testimony was contradicted at the trial, a new light is thrown on it by the admission that it was false, so that, on a new trial, there would be a strong circumstance in favor of the losing party that did not exist and therefore could not have been shown, at the time of the original trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Caldwell

3. ““Taking all of these things together, we have a strong and abiding conviction that Goldstein’s testimony concerning the Albany Park Bank Building was false.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. Johnson v. Goldstein