Stoneking v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 federal appellate · 2 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In considering the effect of a challenged portion of a court’s instruction to the jury, this court must view the charge in its entirety to determine whether or not the jury could have been misled by the portions to which objection has been made. Myers v. United States, 8 Cir., 1927, 18 F.2d 529 , 530. So here, if we view only the particular portions of the charge objected to, fault might be found; but when viewed in the light of the court’s remarks which immediately followed the objected-to portions, .we find no reason for criticism, and must conclude that the jury was not confused by the instruction and that taken as. a whole it was not improper.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blocker v. United States · Clifford J. Hance, Jr. v. United States of America, Bob Neal Carson v. United States

2. ““ * * * we think the line of demarcation between what a court may say to the jury in a criminal case in expressing his opinion on the facts, and what he may not say, is to be drawn between mere expression of opinion not partaking of such argumentative nature as to amount to advocacy, leaving to the jury absolute freedom to. determine the facts, and such discussion as amounts to an argument and makes the court in fact an advocate against the defendant. A trial judge is not merely a moderator or umpire; neither is he an advocate.””

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

3. ““There is another, very cogent reason why failure to give defendant’s second requested instruction was not error in this particular case. It is, of course, the better practice to give the instruction where the testimony of the accomplices lacks corroboration, but in the instant case we think there was substantial corroboration of the testimony of the two accomplices. . . . We find no error in connection with appellant’s second point.’’ (p. 392.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wood