Franano v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 533 · 1962
Citation profile
59 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably United States v. Leach (1970), United States v. Arteaga-Limones (1976)
59 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Quercia v. United States · Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County · Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. United States · Territo v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There can be no doubt that a federal judge in a criminal case is more than a mere moderator and may assist the jury in arriving at a just conclusion by explaining and commenting upon the evidence and by expressing his opinion upon the facts, provided he clearly states to the jury that all matters of fact are submitted to their determination. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 , 469, 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933); Northcraft v. United States, supra, 271 F.2d [184] at 188-189; Myres v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 329 , 338 (1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 849 , 70 S.Ct. 91 , 94 L.Ed. 520 (1949); Buchanan v. United States, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 496 , 497-498 (1926). However, since a trial judge’s influence upon a jury is necessarily of such great magnitude, a trial judge should exercise care and discretion in expressing an opinion so as not to mislead or, in effect, to destroy the jury’s right as the sole arbiters of all fact ques tions. Quercia v. United States, supra, 289 U.S. at 470 , 58 S.Ct. at 699; Holmes v. United States, 4 Cir., 271 F.2d 685 , 639 (1959); Stoneking v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F.2d 385 , 389-390 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 835 , 77 S.Ct. 54 , 1 L.Ed.2d 54 (1956); Cook v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 50 , 52 (1927).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“" * * * However, since a trial judge’s influence upon a jury is necessarily of such great magnitude, a trial judge should exercise care and discretion in expressing an opinion so as not to mislead or, in effect, to destroy the jury’s right as the sole arbiters of all fact questions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A charge must be viewed in its entirety in determining whether a jury would have been misled or unduly influenced by the portions to which objection has been made. (Citing eases.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.