United States v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the district court should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the Guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate for that determination. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 . The court should consider this sentencing range along with the other factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), and then impose a sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(2). Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 . The sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and ... reasonable.” Id. at 547 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Iskander · United States v. Cardwell

2. “[a] defendant who wrongfully and intentionally renders a declarant unavailable as a witness in any proceeding forfeits the right to exclude, on hearsay grounds, the declarant's statements at that proceeding and any subsequent proceeding " (emphasis added). Id . at 242. The Commonwealth argues that this case supports the proposition that the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is not limited to the proceeding that was the focus of the defendant's attempt to make the witness unavailable to testify. The court in Gray , however, made clear that the Federal rule would apply only when "the defendant's wrongdoing was intended to, and did, render the declarant unavailable as a witness against the defendant " (emphasis added). Id . at 241. Indeed, the court specifically declared, "We emphasize that the intent requirement in Rule 804(b)(6) continues to limit application of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to those cases in which the defendant intended, at least in part, to render the declarant unavailable as a witness against him " (emphasis added). Id . at 242 n.9. Because there is no evidence in this case that the defendant intended to make Ortiz unavailable as a witness against him, we need not reach the issue whether our common-law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing would apply where a defendant renders a declarant unavailable as a witness in "any proceeding”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 Wis. 2d 700 - State v. Joseph B. Reinwand · Commonwealth v. Rosado

3. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Parker · 160 F. App'x 298 - United States v. Lapteff