French v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[1-6] Appellant first contends that it was error to convict him upon confessions uncorroborated by proof of the corpus delicti. He makes the broad claim that to prove the corpus delicti the evidence aliunde the confession must establish every essential element of the offense charged including the connection of the accused with the crime, that is, his identity as the criminal. We do not at all agree. On the contrary, we share the view of most American courts that the phrase ‘corpus delicti’ includes but two elements: first, the fact of an injury or loss; and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality as the cause of the injury or loss. Furthermore, Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 93, 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 , 45 A.L.R.2d 1308 , makes it clear that corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the confessions of the accused, to establish these two elements which constitute the corpus delicti. Indeed, it is necessary only for the Government to introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the confession. And when this requirement is met, such independent evidence thus serves the dual function of tending to make the confession reliable, while also establishing independently the other necessary elements of the crimes charged. It is therefore sufficient if the corroboration supports the facts sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth. Those facts plus the other evidence besides the confessi”

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

2. ““I do not think it is open to us to join with the ‘most’ American' courts as on tlie same day the Supreme Court handed down Opper v. United States, * * * it decided Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147 , 75 S.Ct. 194 , 198, 99 L.Ed. 192 . Smith categorically accepting the teaching of Forte (Forte v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 111 , 94 F.2d 236 , 127 A.L.R. 1120 ), which it cites, plainly states concerning crimes producing no tangible injury, ‘As to this [intangible] crime, it cannot be shown that the crime has been committed without identifying the accused. * * * We choose to apply the rule, with its broader guarantee, to crimes in which there is no tangible corpus delicti, where the corrobative evidence must implicate the accused in order to show that a crime has been committed. * * * [Citing cases.]’ ””

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