Weiler v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

463 federal appellate · 9 district · 136 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 714 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “substitute our judgment for that of the jury”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baines v. United States · Kea v. State

2. “Our system of justice rests on the general assumption that the truth is not to be determined merely by the number of witnesses on each side of a controversy. In gauging the truth of conflicting evidence, a jury has no simple formulation of weights and measures upon which to rely. The touchstone is always credibility; the ultimate measure of testimonial worth is quality and not quantity. Triers of fact in our fact-finding tribunals are, with rare exceptions, free in the exercise of their honest judgment, to prefer the testimony of a single witness to that of many.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Charboneau · United States v. Hogue

3. ““ * * * To return a verdict of guilty on a charge of perjury a jury must, of course, be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the accused testified falsely but that he did not, at the time, believe his testimony to be true. The first inquiry in a determination of whether or not the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find an accused guilty of perjury relates to the application ■of the 'two witness rule.’ This rule is misnamed. It does not require the testimony of two witnesses. Properly stated it is that ‘the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish, for purposes of conviction of perjury, the falsity of sworn testimony.’ (citations omitted) * * * We think the evidence effered on the first count satisfies the rule. “Fulfillment of the two witness rule is necessary for conviction of perjury. It is not, however, sufficient for conviction. An additional requirement is that the jury could (reasonably believe that there was no reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt, (citations omitted.) This requirement, of course, relates to both elements of perjury: the falsity of the testimony and the lack of a belief in its truth. Generally, a belief as to the falsity of testimony may be inferred by the jury from proof of the falsity itself. * * * ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Magin · People v. Robinson