United States v. Bowe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 federal appellate · 17 district · 6 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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence which is only slightly probative if its introduction would confuse and mislead the jury by focusing its attention on collateral issues and if it would unnecessarily delay the trial.... The rationale underlying this broad grant of discretion is that such a determination necessarily requires the balancing of intangible factors peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial judge____ [I]t is apparent, as the trial judge stated after hearing extensive argument, that the introduction of the proffered testimony would have opened up a trial within a trial. It would not only have been proper to call witnesses to the alleged conversation in July, 1964 between Teahan and Wood, for purposes of clarifying whether, by whom and in what context the statements were made but other witnesses might have been called for impeachment purposes.... The trial judge correctly concluded that the confusion and delay which would have resulted from the introduction of Teahan’s testimony outweighed its slight probative value.” (Citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Md. App. 247 - Harris v. State · United States v. Kahn

2. “By direct contrast, the adverse publicity in the present case appeared several months prior to the trial and the importance of this time-lag cannot be overlooked. Both the Supreme Court and this court have indicated that the length of time between the publication of adverse publicity and the empaneling of the jury is a significant factor in assessing claims of prejudice resulting from pre-trial publicity [citing cases]. Since the articles involved here were twelve weeks old at the time the jury was empanelled, it is highly unlikely that they were retained in the memories of the jurors.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wansley v. Slayton

3. “[T]he fact that jurors exposed to publicity during a trial would probably be very reluctant to confess violating a trial court’s admonition to refrain from consulting any materials dealing with the trial not introduced in evidence in front of their fellow jurors militates in favor of examining such jurors individually and out of the presence of other jurors. On the other hand, no such stigma is attached to an admission by a prospective juror that he has read or heard about a pending matter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hayton v. Egeler