San Fratello v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.2d 560 · 1965
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably United States v. Black (1974), United States v. Bolts (1977)
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Bruno v. United States · Hawkins v. United States · McCandless v. United States · 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette
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.
“"The rule is well settled that generally an appellant has the burden of showing both error and injury resulting from it. Baker v. United States, 5 Cir., 156 F.2d 386 (1946); Wells v. United States, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 932 (1947); Escalante v. United States, 5 Cir., 228 F.2d 61 (1955). That burden is discharged where the record shows error which, `within the range of a reasonable probability, may have affected the verdict.' Braswell v. United States, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 597, 602 (1952); Bacino v. United States, 10 Cir., 316 F.2d 11, 14 (1963). Also, if the error is of such a nature that its natural effect is to prejudice a defendant's substantial rights, it must affirmatively appear from the record to be harmless in order for the conviction to be upheld. McCandless v. United States, 298 U.S. 342, 347 , 56 S.Ct. 764, 766 , 80 L.Ed. 1205, 1209 (1935); Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 760 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1564 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even in the face of this inevitable inference, it may well be proper in some cases to have the proceeding in the presence of the jury where the government is dealing with what has sometimes been called the ‘ordinary’ witness; that is, with one not so closely connected with the defendant by the facts of the case, the pleadings, or relationship that the inference of the witness’ guilt would likely be imputed to the defendant. The circumstances could be such that the jury would naturally expect the witness to be called. But a defendant’s spouse or a co-defendant would not come within that category.” 340 F.2d at 565 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In our view an interrogating official himself gravely abuses the privilege against self-incrimination when, believing a truthful answer will incriminate a witness, he nevertheless insists on asking the incriminating question with a view to eliciting a claim of privilege and thereby creating prejudice against the witness or some other party concerned."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mathis v. State
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.