Wapnick v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A scrutiny of the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that the jury had ample justification for a finding that what Wapnick did he did ‘wilfully,’ ‘knowingly’ and with the deliberate intention of masterminding a gang of thieves in an extensive ‘hot . car’ racket. It was he who originated the scheme, and he was a financial backer. It was he who procured and furnished the thieves who actually stole the cars, and it was he who devised the elaborate plan of concealment by the purchase of wrecks, the removal of the serial number identification plates and the affixing of such plates to cars purposely stolen because they were of the same year and make as the wrecks.” Wapnick v. United States, 355 F.2d 136, 138 (2d Cir. 1966).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wapnick v. United States · Wapnick v. United States

2. ““Despite all this we are urged to consider the point of wilfulness particularly with reference to the interstate feature of the substantive counts. In this connection we have given careful attention not only to the 45 page brief filed by counsel but also to two lengthy, handwritten documents entitled ‘Supplemental Brief’ and ‘Rebuttal’ and a typewritten reply brief submitted by appellant himself. The point, however, is a mere rehash of a contention made on the direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and already rejected by us. United States v. Wapnick, 2 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 96 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 829 , 83 S.Ct. 1868 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1052 . Moreover, a Section 2255 proceeding may not be used to correct alleged trial errors which were, or could have been, raised on direct appeal from the conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Gernie, 2 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 637 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 854 , 82 S.Ct. 91 , 7 L.Ed.2d 52 ; United States v. Crawley, 4 Cir., 1962, 309 F.2d 155 ; Davis v. United States, 7 Cir., 1963, 311 F.2d 495 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 846 , 83 S.Ct. 1906 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1067 .” Wapnick v. United States, 355 F.2d 136, 138-139 (C.A. 2, 1966).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crowder v. United States