Fletcher v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
334 F.2d 584 · 1964
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Opper v. United States · Delli Paoli v. United States · Massiah v. United States · Huggins v. Raines · Skibs v. Otis McAlLister & 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During this [the voir dire] examination it was disclosed that some jurors had served in pri- or criminal cases and in narcotic cases. Counsel for defendant made no attempt to examine the jurors on this subject and he suggested no questions to be asked by the court thereon. The few questions in the Wilson [the prior] case referring to appellant were a minute part of a 280-page transcript of the proceedings therein. The reference to appellant therein, in any event, even if recalled by any of the jurors was somewhat similar to a statement in a newspaper which a juror may have read. It in no way compared to the positive detailed charge contained in the information that appellant had at a definite time and place sold narcotics and to the positive testimony of the government’s witnesses as to the details of this sale. We hold that no prejudice to the appellant has been shown. Concurring Judge Hamley stated (at 588-89): Had the information which came to the three jurors in the previous Wilson trial, to the effect that appellant Alcie Fletcher “ * * * is a narcotics peddler. * * come from a witness who did not subsequently testify to the same effect in the Fletcher trial, I would feel that the failure of counsel for Fletcher to be advised of this occurrence deprived him, in the Fletcher trial, of the opportunity to exercise, effectively and intelligently, the peremptory challenges available to him under Rule 24(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This in turn, in my view, would ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bromwell v. Williams
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.