St. Clair v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

318 federal appellate · 16 district · 59 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 472 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Exceptions were taken, at different stages of the trial, to the admission, against the objection of the accused, of evidence as to the acts, appearance, and declarations of Sparf and Hansen. These objections seem to rest upon rhe general ground that the indictment did not charge St. Olair, Sparf, and Hansen as co-conspirators. The evidence was not for that reason to be rejected. St. Glair. Sparf, and Hansen were charged jointly with having killed and murdered Fitzgerald. The acts, appearances, and declarations of either, if part of res gestee, were admissible for the purpose of presenting to the jury an accurate view of the situation as it was at the time the alleged murder was committed. Circumstances attending a particular transaction under investigation by a jury, if so interwoven with each other and with the principal fact that they cannot well be separated without depriving the jury of proof that is essential in order to reach a just conclusion, are admissible in evidence. These surrounding circumstances, constituting part of the res gestae, Greenleaf. says, ‘may always be shown to the jury along with the principal fact, and their admissibility is determined by the judge according to the degree of their relation to that fact, and in the exercise of his sound discretion: it being extremely difficult if not impossible, to bring this class of oases within the limits of a more particular description.’ 1 Greenleaf, Ev. (12th Ed.) p. 108. See, also, 1 Bishop, Crim. Pro., pp. ”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sprinkle v. United States · Sprinkle v. United States

2. ““These provisions of the Penal Code of California do not control the proceedings in the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in that state. What is necessary to be done in a Circuit Court, even in civil cases, in order that its action upon any particular question or matter may be reviewed or revised in this court, depends upon the acts of Congress and the rules of practice which this court recognizes as essential in the administration of justice. Such is the result of our decisions. Rev. Stat., sec. 914 [Comp. St. Ann. 1916, § 1537]; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426 [ 23 L. Ed. 286 ]; Indianapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 [ 23 L. Ed. 898 ]; Chateaugay Iron Co., 128 U. S. 544 , 553 [ 9 Sup. Ct. 150 , 32 L. Ed. 508 ]; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 , 208 [ 13 Sup. Ct. 44 , 36 L. Ed. 942 ]; Luxton v. Northern River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337 , 338 [ 13 Sup. Ct. 356 , 37 L. Ed. 194 ]; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U. S. 436 , 442 [ 14 Sup. Ct. 387 , 38 L. Ed. 224 ]; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 , 302 [ 12 Sup. Ct. 617 , 36 L. Ed. 429 ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ghost v. United States · Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland

3. “much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge who sees the witness and can, therefore, determine in the interest of truth and justice whether the circumstances justify leading questions to be propounded to a witness by the party producing him.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Brown · Ellis v. City of Chicago