Jencks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1,193 federal appellate · 89 district · 735 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 2,553 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the Government can invoke its evidentia-ry privileges only at the price of letting the defendant go free.... [S]ince the Government which prosecutes an accused also has the duty to see that justice is done, it is unconscionable to allow it to undertake prosecution and then invoke its governmental privileges to deprive the accused of anything which might be material to his defense.”

   60 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Indiviglio v. United States

2. ““By proper cross-examination, defense counsel laid a foundation for his demand by showing that the documents were in existence, were in possession of the Government, were made by the Government’s witness under examination, were contradictory of his present testimony, and that the contradiction was as to rele vant, important and material matters which directly bore on the main issue being tried: the participation of the accused in the crime. The demand was for production of these specific documents and did not propose any broad or blind fishing expedition among documents possessed by the Government on the chance that something impeaching might turn up. * * * Despite some contrary holdings on which the courts below may have relied, we think their reasoning is outweighed by that of highly respectable authority in state and lower federal courts in support of the view that an accused is entitled to the production of such documents.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. LaRocca · United States v. Brockington

3. ““Now if a paper be in possession of the opposite party, what statement of its contents or applicability can be expected from the person who claims its production, he not precisely knowing its contents ?””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Lavallee · United States v. Nobles