United States v. Sansone’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.2d 887 · 1956
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2015 · most notably Jencks v. United States (1957), United States v. Indiviglio (1965)
85 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 371
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Di Re · Krulewitch v. United States · United States v. Atkinson · On Lee 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Nor does it make any difference that when the evidence concerning the sale of July 3 was introduced, the prosecution had not yet proved appellant’s connection with the conspiracy. The order in which evidence is received is within the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Pugliese, 2 Cir., 1945, 153 F.2d 497 , 500; Cohen v. United States, 2 Cir., 1907, 157 F. 651 , 655, certiorari denied 207 U.S. 596 , 28 S.Ct. 261 , 52 L.Ed. 357 ; Hoeppel v. United States, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 71 , 85 F.2d 237 , 242, cer-tiorari denied 299 U.S. 557 , 57 S.Ct. 19 , 81 L.Ed. 410 ; rehearing denied 299 U.S. 622 , 57 S.Ct. 188 , 81 L.Ed. 458 . Since the jury could conclude from the evidence that appellant had been a member of the conspiracy not only on July 3, 1951, when the sale objected to was made, but as early as 1949, the evidence of the sale was admissible.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While we may in our discretion notice errors not brought to the attention of the trial court, Rule 52 (b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., this discretion will not be exercised to reverse a conviction based on ample evidence unless the errors have seriously prejudiced the defendant or affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Atkinson, 1936, 297 U.S. 157 , 160, 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 ; United States v. Jones, 7 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 745 , certiorari denied 346 U.S. 854 , 74 S.Ct. 67 , 98 L.Ed. 368 , rehearing denied 346 U.S. 905 , 74 S. Ct. 216 , 98 L.Ed. 404 .””
1 later decision 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.