D'Aquino v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 338 · 1951
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Marion (1971), Jencks v. United States (1957)
131 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 2381 · 18 U.S.C. § 3238 · 28 U.S.C. § 1783 · 8 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Caminetti v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Mooney v. Holohan · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Bram v. United States
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Counsel for appellant objected to the cross-examination upon this point on the ground that it was improper as relating to matters that were not touched upon on direct examination of the witness. We think that appellant’s contention is based upon a misunderstanding of the proper scope of cross-examination. Appellant had given testimony in her direct examination designed to show both directly and circumstantially her good intent and her lack of intent to betray the United States. Thus, the whole question of appellant’s intention was open to inquiry upon cross-examination and the cross-examiner was entitled to bring up for examination any matter which rightly had a bearing upon intent.” 192 F.2d 338 at page 370.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As stated by this court in Iva Ikuko Toguri D’Aquino v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 338 , 367, “ ‘Our system of jurisprudence properly makes it a matter primarily for the discretion of the trial court to determine whether prejudicial misconduct has occurred. An appellate court will not review the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in such a matter unless the misconduct and prejudice is so clear that it can be said that the trial judge has been guilty of an abuse of discretion.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is sufficient if the corroborative evidence, when considered in connection with the confession or admission, satisfied the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was in fact committed. * * * [T]his court indicated that the usual instructions on presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt adequately covered all that the jury need be told upon this question of sufficiency of proof of the corpus delicti .”
2 later decisions 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.