United States v. Jacangelo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 1 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * [T]he evidence of involvement in other crimes was intrinsically inadmissible as highly prejudicial information about a collateral matter not connected with the offense charged. [Citations omitted.] This was a far more serious matter than the technical objection to the statement as hearsay. To inform the jury of prior crimes of a defendant is, in the view of the Supreme Court, so improper and so prejudicial that a mistrial must be declared, even when the jurors assert that they can and will disregard that information. * * * " * * * [W]e think he should not have been subjected to additional risk of unwarranted harm through the pointless and wholly unnecessary disclosure of his prior complicity in crime. Therefore, scrupulous concern that criminal jury trials be .safeguarded as far as possible against prejudicial influences dictates that the appellant be granted a new trial.” 281 F.2d at 576-577 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lane v. Warden · Richard Lane v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary