Milam v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.2d 104 · 1963
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably United States v. Perez (1973), United States v. Duncan (1990)
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Gore v. United States · Heflin v. United States · Prince v. United States · Durland 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was within the sound discretion of the trial judge as to whether the defendants should be tried together or severally and there is nothing in the record to indicate an abuse of such discretion when petitioner’s motion for severance was overruled. * * * To say that the jury might have been confused amounts to nothing more than an unfounded speculation that the jurors disregarded clear instructions of the court in arriving at their verdict. Our theory of trial relies upon the ability of a jury to follow instructions. There is nothing in this record to call for reversal because of any confusion or injustice arising from the joint trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““E. g., Badders v. United States, 1916, 240 U.S. 391 [ 36 S.Ct. 367 , 60 L.Ed. 706 ]; Durland v. United States, 1895, 161 U.S. 306 [ 16 S.Ct. 508 , 40 L.Ed. 709 ] ; In Re Henry, 1887, 123 U.S. 372 [ 8 S.Ct. 142 , 31 L.Ed. 174 ]; Marvin v. United States, 10 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 451 ; Palmer v. United States, 10 Cir., 1955, 229 F.2d 861 , cert. denied, 1956, 350 U.S. 996 , 76 S.Ct. 546 , 100 L.Ed. 861 ; Stumbo v. United States, 6 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 828 , cert. denied 302 U.S. 755 [ 58 S.Ct. 282 , 82 L.Ed. 584 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““At trial, each defendant was represented by counsel of his own choice. Each counsel had an equal opportunity of objection and presentations of motions to the Court. There was unlimited right to cross-examination of the Government’s witnesses. In short, each counsel was given ample opportunity to present his client’s case.””
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.