Stapleton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The general rules for determining the sufficiency of an indictment are well settled. Indictments are now immune from the technical challenges permitted at common law. They will be held sufficient if as a practical matter they state the elements of the offense clearly enough to enable the defense to prepare for trial and to plead a judgment in bar of a future prosecution for the same offense. Prejudice to the defendant is a controlling consideration.’ (Citing cases). *- * * * * * “ ‘An indictment is not required to set out all those elements of the offense which must be found by the jury before they may find the accused guilty. It is sufficient “that the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can be found within the terms of the indictment.” Hagner v. United States, supra, 285 U.S. 427 at page 433, 52 S.Ct. 417 at page 420, 76 L.Ed. 861 . In other words, all the essential elements need not be stated directly if they are necessarily implied.’ ” 1”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paritem Singh Poonian v. United States · United States v. Williams

2. ““Several Government witnesses testified as to statements made by Stapleton concerning the circumstances under which he acquired possession of the stolen property. They also testified concerning offers by him to make ‘deals’ in connection with the prosecution of this case. The trial judge did not instruct the jury that the oral admissions of a party are to be viewed with caution. Such an instruction is required in all proper cases by Title 58, Chapter 5, Section 1, A.C. L.A.1949. Although appellant neither requested such an instruction nor objected to its omission, he now asks that we reverse his conviction on the ground of plain error under Buie 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C.A. “We have carefully examined the entire record, and we are satisfied that no plain error was committed. Unlike Stephenson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 702 , [ 53 A.L.R. 2d 812 ,] this is not a case in which the appellant was connected to the offense charged solely by his own admissions. Here there were many other circumstances which tended to connect Stapleton with the theft of the property. The camp was in a secluded area; he was in that area at the time of the theft; he had knowledge of the property on the float; he made frequent calls at the float; he had the stolen goods in his possession about a month after the theft; and he later sold these goods. Under the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to relieve appellant of the consequences of his failure to rai”

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