United States Kassin v. Mulligan US’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 federal appellate · 22 district · 14 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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It may not with perfect accuracy be said,.as in some removal decisions it has been said or implied, that the indictment is evidence of the facts that it alleges. But it fulfills the constitutional requirement (Amendment 5), establishes probable cause (Amendment 4), and is itself authority to bring the-accused to trial. In the absence of evidence requiring a finding that there is no ground for the prosecution, the government is entitled to an order for removal. Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 90 , 25 S.Ct. 573 , 49 L.Ed. 950 ; Price v.Henkel, 216 U.S. 488, 493 , 30 S.Ct. 257 , 54 L.Ed. 581 . Cf. South Carolina v. Bailey, 289 U.S. 412, 420 , 53 S.Ct. 667 , 77 L.Ed. 1292 . The indictment is not conclusive, for under section 1014 the petitioner has the right to introduce evidence in opposition to the showing made against him. Tinsley v. Treat, supra, 205 U.S. 20, 32 , 27 S.Ct. 430 , 51 L.Ed. 689 . But as the order of removal adjudges nothing affecting the merits of the case and amounts to no more than a finding that the accused may be brought to trial, the Commissioner is without power towule on disputed questions of law whether they relate to the sufficiency of the indictment or the validity of the statute on which the charge is based. Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219, 229 , 35 S.Ct. 54 , 59 L.Ed. 203 ; Stallings v. Splain, 253 U.S. 339, 344, 345 , 40 S.Ct. 537 , 64 L.Ed. 940 ; Morse v. United States, 267 U.S. 80, 83 , 45 S.Ct. 209 , 69 L.Ed. 522. And for like reasons he may not ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. States v. Stein · United States v. Carlisle

2. ““A person accused by indictment and found within the district where he is wanted is not entitled to a hearing in advance of trial. Beavers v. Henkel, supra, 194 U.S. 73 [at page] 84, 24 S.Ct. 605 . The statute gives such a right to one otherwise accused. There is no constitutional right to a hearing in advance of removal. Undoubtedly, Congress has power to direct the accused persons be taken, immediately and without hearing, before the court for trial. U. S. ex rel. Hughes v. Gault, 271 U.S. 142, 149, 1952 , [152] 46 S.Ct. 459 , 70 L.Ed. 875 . But, as otherwise hardship and injustice might result, it has given a right to examination and hearing. Beavers v. Henkel, supra, 194 U.S. 73 [at page] 83, 24 S.Ct. 605 ; Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20, 29 , 27 S.Ct. 430 , 51 L.Ed. 689 ; Hughes v. Gault, supra. In removal proceedings, the case of an indicted person is to be distinguished from that of one accused only by complaint filed with the Commissioner. Identity being shown or admitted, the indictment without more prima facie requires the order of removal. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U.S. 249, 262 , 22 S.Ct. 218 , 46 L.Ed. 177 ; Venson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1, 10-12 , 25 S.Ct. 569 , 49 L.Ed. 919 . Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 84 , 25 S.Ct. 760 , 50 L.Ed. 90 ; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 481 , 30 S.Ct. 249 , 54 L.Ed. 569 . Evidence is required to support the allegations of the complaint.” United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 1935, 295 U.S. 396, 400 , 55 S.Ct. 781, 782 , 79 L.Ed. 1501 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Binion · Talbott v. United States ex rel. Toth

3. ““For any crime or offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any United States commissioner, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any State where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode of process, against offenders in such State, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States ns by law has cognizance of the offense. * * * Where any offender or witness is committed in any district other than that where the offense is to be tried, it shall be the duty of the judge of the district where such offender or witness is imprisoned, seasonably to issue, and of the marshal to execute, a warrant for his removal to the district where the trial i-s to be had.””

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