United States v. Bertone’s Empirical Analysis
249 F.2d 156 · 1957
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1994 · most notably Lott v. United States (1961), United States v. Blackwell (1982)
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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
Relies on United States v. Smith · Clune v. United States · Adams v. Maryland · Thompson v. United States · United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The evidence must have been discovered after the trial; (2) The failure to learn of the evidence must not have been caused by defendants’ lack of diligence; (3) The new evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) It must be material to the principal issues involved; and (5) It must be of such a nature that in a new trial it would probably produce an acquittal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interest of justice. ... A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While it may be conceded that these affidavits show efforts on the part of the defendant Sullivan to obtain the evidence which he believed to be within the possession and knowledge of Mr. Moritt for use at the trial, this evidence cannot be said to be evidence ‘discovered since the trial’. On the contrary, assuming the contents of Sullivan’s affidavit to be true. I find merely a situation, not at all unusual in a trial, civil or criminal, where a potential witness informed as to certain matters or possessed of certain information, disclaims knowledge and is unwilling to appear and testify in court. The record of this case establishes conclusively that during the investigation of the 1948 tax return and during the trial the defendants were at all times represented by not one but by several competent and experienced attorneys. I cannot assume that these attorneys were unaware that upon their application under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [18 U.S.C.A.] the subpoena of this Court would issue compelling the appearance of Mr. Moritt as a witness at the trial. Nor can I assume that if summoned and placed under oath Mr. Moritt would have disclaimed all knowledge of the transactions which he now claims to remember so vividly.” Berkshire, supra, at page 48.”
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.