United States v. Robert M. Jordan, Harry Lee Stokes and Rita Evonne Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.2d 610 · 1968
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), United States v. Papadakis (1975)
50 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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. § 2
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Wade · Massiah v. United States · Costello v. United States · Opper 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To the extent that Rule 16(b) requires discovery of this kind of material at all, it is only on ‘a showing of materiality to the preparation of [the] * * * defense and that the request is reasonable.’ The Advisory Committee Notes (printed in 18 U.S.C.A. (Supp.1967) following Rule 16) state that the ‘requirement of reasonableness will permit the court to define and limit the scope of the government’s obligation to search its files.’ Clearly the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 16(b) in denying access to the material sought. Brady v. State of Maryland merely holds that due process requires the government to produce upon request ‘evidence favorable to an accused’ which is ‘material either to guilt or to punishment.’ (citation omitted.) It does not require the government to disclose the myriad immaterial statements and names and addresses which any extended investigation is bound to produce. [Defendant] contends that it is for defense counsel to determine what evidence is favorable to his client. We hold that the decision is one for the trial court, subject to appellate review.”
2 later decisions 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.