United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, * * *, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, * * * may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. ****** “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arrington v. United States · United States v. Rosario

2. ““As I have stated, a defendant on trial may overcome inferences arising against him from actual or constructive possession of a narcotic drug by facts and circumstances and by satisfactory proof that in his case possession of narcotics did not involve a violation of the statute, either because the narcotics were not imported contrary to law or because he had no knowledge of unlawful importation. ***** “Any evidence which satisfies the jury that possession of a narcotic drug was innocent possession, constitutes a sufficient explanation under the statute. “Despite the fact that the indictment contains the allegations that the narcotic drug involved had been imported into the United States contrary to law, and that the defendants knew such to be the fact, nevertheless, the statute makes it unnecessary for the government to offer any evidence in support of the charge as to these elements if the government shows that the defendants were in constructive or actual possession of the narcotic. Actual or constructive possession of narcotics gives rise to an inference that the narcotics were imported contrary to law and to further inference that the person in possession had knowledge of such unlawful importation. It is then incumbent upon the defendants to go forward with the evidence and show that they came into possession of the narcotic legally. In this connection, I charge you that if you find defendants had in their possession the forbidden drug, namely, the narcotic drug, such pos”

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

3. ““This provision of the statute clearly leaves the matter of entertaining a second or subsequent motion to the discretion of the trial court. Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 438 ; Story v. United States, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 952 .””

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