United States v. Hiss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The jury might well have believed that the appellant had been less than frank in his belated recognition of Mr. Chambers as a man he had known as Crosley and had admittedly known well enough to provide for him a partly furnished apartment at cost with all utilities free to say nothing of an automobile, old certainly, but still useful. The jury had ample evidence other than the testimony of Mr. Chambers on which to find, as it evidently did, that the documents of which Mr. Chambers produced copies were all available to Mr. Hiss at the State Department and that finding, coupled with the admitted fact that they were copied on a typewriter which the jury could well find was used for that purpose when in the possession of Mr. Hiss in his home, supplied circumstances which strongly corroborated the testimony of Mr. Chambers. Indeed, such known circumstances tend to fill out a normal pattern of probability when so interpreted, while in attempting to reconcile them with the appellant’s denial of association with the delivery of State Department documents, or their copies, to Mr. Chambers, one approaches the realm of sheer speculation. To the prosecution’s theory that the appellant abstracted these copied documents and took them home where they were copied on a typewriter which the jury could, and doubtless did, find was then in his home, the only possible alternative is that one or more others abstracted them (for there is not the slightest evidence or suggestion that this Woodstock ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hiss

2. “3. That it was material to this investigation to ascertain whether the espionage or other statutes of the United States had been violated by the unlawful abstraction or removal of secret, confidential or restricted documents, writings, sketches, notes or other papers by persons employed by the United. States Government, or by the furnishing, delivery or transmittal of any such documents, writings, sketches, notes or other papers to any unauthorized persons, and whether the defendant Alger Hiss had any knowledge of any such violation. 4. That at the time and place aforesaid, the defendant Alger Hiss, duly appearing as a witness before the said Grand Jurors, and then and there being under oath as aforesaid, and having been duly advised of the nature of the investigation then and there being conducted, testified falsely before said Grand Jurors with respect to the aforesaid material matter as follows: Q Mr. Hiss, you have probably been asked this question before, but I’d like to ask the question again. At any time did you, or Mrs. Hiss in your presence, turn any documents of the State Department or of any other Government organization, or copies of any documents of the State Department or any other Government organization, over to Whittaker Chambers? A Never. Excepting, I assume, the title certificate to the Ford. Q In order to clarify it, would that be the only exception? A The only exception. JUROR: To nobody else did you turn over any documents, to any other person? THE WITNE”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 338 F. Supp. 1141 - Hiss v. Hampton

3. “Q. Now, Mr. Hiss, Mr. Chambers says that he obtained typewritten copies of official State documents from you. A. I know he has. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Chambers after you entered into the State Department? A. I do not believe I did. I cannot swear that I did not see him some time, say, in the fall of ’36. And I entered the State Department September 1, 1936. Q. Now, you say possibly in the fall of ’36? A. That would be possible. Q. Can you say definitely with reference to the winter of ’36; I mean, say, December, ’36? A. Yes, I think I can say definitely I did not see him. Q. Can you say definitely that you did not see him after January 1, 1937? A. Yes, I think I can definitely say that. MR. WHEARTY: Understanding, of course, exclusive of House hearings and exclusive of the Grand Jury. THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. That the aforesaid testimony of the defendant, as he then and there well knew and believed, was untrue in that the defendant did in fact see and converse with the said Mr. Chambers in or about the months of February and March, 1938, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hiss