John Benson v. William Henkel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 federal appellate · 43 district · 20 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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ 'While we have no desire to minimize what we have already said with regard to the indictment setting out the substance of the offense in language sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against him, still it must be borne in mind that the indictment is merely offered as proof of the charge originally contained in the complaint, and not as a complaint in itself or foundation of the charge, which may be supported by oral testimony as well as by the indictment. "When the accused is arraigned in the trial court he may take advantage of every insufficiency in the indictment, since it is there the very foundation of the charge, but to hold it to be the duty of the commissioner to determine the validity of every indictment as a pleading, when offered only as evidence, is to put in his hands a dangerous power, which might be subject to serious abuse. If, for instance, he were moved by personal considerations, popular clamor or insufficient knowledge of the law to discharge the accused by reason of the insufficiency of the indictment, it might turn out that the indictment was perfectly valid and that the accused should have been held. But the evil once done is, or may be, irremediable, and the commissioner, in setting himself up as a court of last resort to determine the validity of the indictment, is liable to do a gross injustice/ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morse v. United States · Cochran v. Esola

2. ““Wo have had frequent occasion to hold generally lhat technical objections should not be considered, and that the legal sufficiency of the indictment'is only to bo determined by tlie court in which it is found. * * * Of course, tills rule has its limitations. If the indictment were a mere information, or obviously, upon inspection, set forth no crime against the United States, or a wholly different crime from that alleged as the basis for proceedings, * * * tlie commissioner could not properly consider it as ground for removal. In such cases resort must be had to other evidencio of probable cause.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Conetto v. United States · Whitaker v. Hitt

3. ““ * * * Any construction oí the law which would preclude the extradition to the District of Columbia of offenders who are arrested elsewhere would be attended by such abhorrent consequences that nothing but the- clearest language would authorize such construction. It certainly could never have been intended that persons guilty of offenses against the laws of the. United States should escape punishment simply by crossing the Potomac river, nor, upon the other hand, that this District should become an Alsatia for the refuge of criminals from every part of the country.””

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