People v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably People v. Decina (1956), 79 Ill. App. 3d 110 - People v. Duarte (1979)
4 federal appellate · 25 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.
Relationships
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner · Williams v. Kaiser · Dipson Theatres, Inc. v. Buffalo Theatres, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The inference is almost inescapable that it was the report of defendants’ escape-plan conversation that brought Rubin into the courtroom. Although he remained there for five days — December 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21 — on only two of them (December 18 and 19) were witnesses called and testimony given, the other days being taken up with the summation and the court’s instructions. That strongly substantiates the People’s claim that Rubin was in court for security reasons and goes far, in and of. itself, toward refuting defendants’ charge that he was there to poach on lawyer-client confidences. Had the People desired or intended to discover what was said between defendants and their attorneys, reason suggests that they would have planted someone in court long before December 15, six weeks, after the trial began, a day when no testimony was taken and when but a few hours of testimony remained before the trial closed. Nor is it likely, unless Rubin was in the spectators’ box simply to help prevent an escape, that he would have remained for the summations and the court’s charge to the jury.” 307 N.Y. 253 , 120 N.E. 2d 813, 816 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Defendants failed utterly to show that Rubin was planted to listen in on or report conversations between.defendants and their lawyers.” 307 N.Y. 253 , 120 N.E.2d 813, 815 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Here, as already noted, defendants failed to adduce any substantial evidence that Rübin was present for other than proper and legitimate reasons or that he reported anything said between defendants and their lawyers or even that he heard any such conversations. Even if we were to assume that Rubin was in a position where he could not help but overhear, we could not say that the intrusion was other than unintentional and excusable as a merely incidental result of necessary and reasonable precautions to frustrate any possible attempt to escape. The law ‘is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure áre of the essence of an opportunity to defend’ Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 338 , 78 L.Ed. 674 , but it does not prevent the stationing of a police officer in the courtroom near defendants and- their- counsel, if basis for suspicion exists that an attempt to escápe-may be -made.” 307 N.Y. 253 , 120 N.E.2d 813, 817 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. Denno
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.