Scales v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.2d 21 · 1958
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1989 · most notably Davis v. United States (1973), Scales v. United States (1961)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 781 · 50 U.S.C. § 783 · 50 U.S.C. § 786
Relies on McNabb v. United States · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Dennis v. United States · Yates v. United States · Jencks 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his statutory provision ... does not amount to a denial of the due process required by the Fifth Amendment but is merely a procedural regulation which preserves certain substantial rights of the accused and at the same time protects the Government files from the danger of unnecessary disclosure of its sources of information. Most significant is the fact that the new statutory procedure does not deny the defendant access to any information which would be helpful to his case. Production of the reports for inspection does not depend upon the permission of Government custodians or the attorneys for the prosecution; and the determination of what should be excised is not left to the Government but is entrusted to the impartial and experienced judgment ... of the trial judge____ The defense is denied only the opportunity to be heard on the question whether the excised portions of the reports bear on the testimony of the witnesses; and this does not amount to a denial of due process ... but merely restricts [the defendant’s] examination of the Government files which he desires to make, not because he has any reason to believe that they will yield anything helpful to his case but on the chance, which costs him nothing, that something will turn up that will weaken the prosecution. In this situation it is clearly within the province of Congress to protect the right of the United States to withhold facts which it has gathered and to shield the sources of its information in the public ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The information on which the motion (challenging the grand jury composition) was based was at all times available to the defendant and yet he failed to take action despite liberal extensions of time”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the names of grand and petit jurors shall be publicly drawn from a box containing the names of not less than three hundred qualified persons.”
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.