Stein v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.2d 518 · 1962
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 5 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Kelly (1965), United States v. Pheaster (1976)
48 federal appellate · 5 district · 13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hagner v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · Williamson v. United States · United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)he presence of a defendant must bear a reasonably substantial relationship to the opportunity to defend. The Constitution does not assure `the privilege of presence when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, appellant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to be present at all stages of his trial. Specifically, he asserts that he was not present at a conference between court and counsel. At this conference were played recordings of incriminatory conversations between appellant and his co-conspirators, one of whom had worn a concealed recording device. The Government sought to introduce these recordings to corroborate testimony of co-conspirators and Government agents. The Court sustained appellant's counsel's objections to the recordings and, in addition, struck the Government agents' testimony concerning the contents of the recordings. Appellant contends that he should have been present to advise his counsel on the authenticity of the recordings and to determine whether they would have aided his defense, established his innocence, and impeached the testimony of his co-conspirators. This contention is also without merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Calhoun and Robinson each involved a conspiracy to violate 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 . In Calhoun the court declared an indictment fatally defective which failed to allege unlawfulness of the knowing importation of narcotics. In Robinson the majority of the court, in a short per curiam opinion on the authority of Calhoun, held that knowledge by the accused that the narcotic had been unlawfully imported was an essential allegation and that without such allegation the indictment failed to state a public offense. “We disagree with these two cases since, in our opinion, they are in conflict with the modern views of the nature and purpose of an indictment. In addition, they are contrary to the rule laid down by the United States Supreme Court and by a number of circuits [citing Davis v. United States, supra, among others] including our own, concerning the requirements of an indictment based upon a conspiracy.” [Footnotes omitted].”
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.