United States v. Hoffa’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To accept the contention urged by the defendants as a rule of law certainly would produce absurd results since no one who is prominent and well known could be charged with the commission of any crime because the charge against such a person no doubt would cause very large and widespread adverse publicity, precluding an indictment.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re McClelland · Schwartz v. United States Department of Justice

2. “To the extent that ‘trial by newspaper’ was indulged in by Federal law-enforcement officials, it is to be regretted and condemned. But the issues raised by the defendant’s motion require an examination into the existence and prejudicial effect of the publicity, rather than into its source and inspiration. The motion to dismiss is based on the proposition, be it one of law or fact, that the deliberations of the grand jury must have been tainted by the flood of prejudicial publicity. . . . But for a rule of law that a grand jury cannot hand down a valid indictment because qf publicity charging the atmosphere, more direct and explicit authority is required. Nor am I willing to ‘suppose’, assume or conjecture, as a matter of fact, that the grand jury . deliberations were so infected as to invalidate the indictment; although it must be added, in all fairness, that such a supposition would do little violence either to the conscience or the imagination. ( 20 F.R.D. at 34-35 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 F. Supp. 1033 - United States v. Mandel

3. “* * * The court upon motion of the defendant shall transfer the proceeding as to him to another district or division, if it appears from the indictment or information or from a bill of particulars that the offense was committed in more than one district or division and if the court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred to another district or division in which the commission of the offense is charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Platt