United States v. Pisano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate · 10 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendants contend that proof of venue is not within the presumption created by Section 174 of Title 21 or Section 2553(a), Title 26 U.S.C. This question is definitely settled by recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals. Thus, in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413 , 48 S.Ct. 373 , 72 L.Ed. 632 , the Supreme Court said that such a statutory presumption is sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime charged. Such proof necessarily includes venue. In Anderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 202 , 205, after referring to the fact that some earlier decisions had held that the presumption did not include venue, the court concluded that these holdings had been reversed in Casey v. United States and that in that case ‘It was squarely held that the defendant must show he obtained the drugs in a mode permitted by law’. In Frazier v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 332 , 163 F.2d 817 , 818, the court said: ‘Appellant contends there was no evidence that he purchased the drugs, or that he acquired them in the District. There was no direct testimony on either point but none was necessary. The statutory “prima facie evidence” clause, quoted above, covers both the fact of purchase and the place of purchase. “The statute here talks of prima facie evidence, but it means only that the burden shall be upon the party found in possession to explain and justify it when accused of the crime that the statute creates.” Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413 , 418, 48 S.Ct”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ware v. United States

2. ““As we understand defendants’ contention, they insist that the government must offer direct proof of possession of the drug in order to raise the statutory presumption. We know of no reason why the evidence must be direct. It must be convincing, of course, but when it is clear that no narcotics were received by anybody until shortly after the defendants were present and had been dealt with, the question becomes one of fact for the jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Malfi