Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

201 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this jurisdiction, however, by “law and practice,” the court first holds a preliminary hearing for the purpose of determining whether there is evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that the confession was voluntary. If the court concludes there is no such evi-' dence, it must exclude the confession; but if it finds there is evidence on the basis of which it might be held to be voluntary, then the question of voluntariness is submitted to the jury.”

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

2. “Every person has the right to use a reasonable amount of force in self defense if, one, he actually believes he is in imminent danger of bodily harm; and two, if he has reasonable grounds for that belief. The question is not whether you believe in retrospect that the use of force is necessary. The question is whether the defendant, under the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time of the incident, actually believed he was in imminent danger of bodily harm and could reasonably hold that belief. The defendant is not required to prove that he acted in self defense. Where evidence of self defense is present, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If you find that the Government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self defense, you must find the Defendant not guilty. There has been testimony both that the complaining witness, Mr. Stewart, was the aggressor and that the Defendant, Mr. Potter, was the aggressor. You must first determine from the evidence whether in fact the Defendant was the aggressor. If you find that the Defendant was the aggressor, or that he provoked the conflict upon himself, he cannot rely upon the right of self defense to justify his use of force. One who deliberately puts himself in a position where he has reason to believe that his presence will provoke trouble cannot claim self defense. However, if one who provokes a conflict and later withdra”

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

3. ““In order to be responsible for Ms acts, a person must have the mental capacity to commit the act with which he is charged. It is not, however, in every case in which the accused is suffering from some mental abnormality or some mental deficiency or defect, or from some mental disorder that he is to be deemed free from liability for his crimes and not responsible for his acts. There are many abnormal persons or many persons with mental deficiencies or persons suffering from personality disorders or mental disorders, whom the law holds responsible in certain instances for a crime that such a person may commit. “Obviously, there are good reasons for this. However, there are certain types of persons afflicted with mental disease and mental defects that are not held responsible for particular crimes. If this defendant was suffering from some mental disease or from some mental defect, or, to put it another way, from a diseased or defective mental condition at the time when the crime was committed and, further — and this is very important— if the crime itself was the product of that mental disease or mental defect then, and only then, the defendant is not responsible for Ms criminal act. “I have used the terms ‘mental disease’ or ‘mental defeat’ and I shall distinguish between the two for you. A mental disease is a deranged or abnormal mental condition which is considered capable of either improving or deteriorating. A mental defect is a deranged or abnormal mental condition which ”

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