United States v. Eagan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 7 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But a challenge to a grand jury, based on the more ground of irregularity in its organization, was never regarded with any favor; less so to-day than ever.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfson v. United States · United States v. Nevin

2. ““But this irregularity in choosing the five grand jurors will not avail (after the jury has been sworn, and have found indictments) as ground for quashing the indictment so found, either on plea in abatement or otherwise, when it appears that the jux-ors so irregularly chosen were competent and qualified jurors, residing ixx the district, and that the oixly irregularity consists in the method of selecting them. * * * If the point to be decided by the court was to be determined solely with reference to the common law, and without reference to local laws, the better opinion seems to be that no objection to an indictment ought “to be allowed, based merely on an irregularity in the manner of selecting a part or the whole of the grand jury which found the bill, if, in all other respects, they were duly-qualified jurors. Thus, in Thompson and Merriam on Juries, it is said that the only objection which can be taken to the grand jurors by plea in abatement, after1- they had been sworn and made presentmeixts, ‘must be such as would disqualify the juror to serve in any case; in other words, the plea must show the absence of positive qualifications demanded by law,’ and not merely an irregularity in the method of selection. Vide Thomp. & M. Juries, §§ 533-536, inclusive, and authorities cited.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Nevin

3. ““But this irregularity in choosing the five grand jurors will not avail (after the jury has been sworn, and have found indictments) as ground for quashing the indictment so found, either on plea in abatement or otherwise, when it, appears that the jurors so irregularly chosen were competent and qualified jurors, residing in the district, and that the only irregularity consists in the method of selecting- them. The plea, in abatement does not, in my judgment, state any fact with respect to the five additional grand jurors that would amount to. a disqualification, either at common law or under the statutes of this state, if the defendant had been present to challenge them before they were sworn.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfson v. United States