Falk v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.2d 472 · 1966
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1989
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996)
Relies on Catrino v. United States · Byrnes v. United States · Arena v. United States · 138 F. Supp. 812 - United States v. Solow · Walker v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rejecting a claim identical to that advanced by appellants, the court in Falk v. United States, 370 F.2d 472 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 926 , 87 S.Ct. 2044 , 18 L.Ed.2d 982 (1967), stated: [T]he defendant ... was not charged with influencing a ‘witness’ within the first provision of Section 1503. [He] was charged with endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. The means of so doing was by attempting to corruptly influence prospective witnesses. It is clear that in the mind of the defendant, they were prospective witnesses. If he had thought otherwise, there would have been no reason to ask [them] to testify falsely. So, while the term ‘witness’ may be a word of art in an indictment under the first portion of Section 1503, the phrase ‘prospective witnesses’ is descriptive only of the intended status of [those whom the defendant attempted to influence] when the Indictment charges obstruction of justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have found no support for the astonishing contention that all witnesses in a successful defense of a criminal prosecution are immunized from subsequent charges of perjury under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[wjhoever ... corruptly or by threats of force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.