United States v. Lanham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 5 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A cross-examination that would be unobjectionable when conducted by the prosecuting attorney might unduly prejudice the defendant when it is conducted by the trial judge. Besides, the defendant’s counsel is placed at a disadvantage, as they might hesitate to make objections and reserve exceptions to the judge’s examination, because, if they make objections, unlike the effect of their objections, to questions by opposing counsel, it will appear to the jury that there is direct conflict between them and the court. If it were the function of the judge in this country as it is in some foreign tribunals, to perform the duties incumbent here on the district attorney, the impression produced on the minds of the jury against the defendant would not be so inevitable. Counsel are expected to maintain an attitude of respect and déference toward the judge, and this attitude is maintained without difficulty when the judge confines his activities to the usual judicial duties. And the judge can more easily treat counsel with the respect due an officer of the court in the performance of a duty, if he avoids the performance of the duties incumbent properly upon an attorney representing one side of the case. The evidence taken as a whole, might be so conclusive of the defendant’s guilt that an appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the judgment on this account alone. But in a case where there is substantial conflict in the evidence as to the essential points that were requ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Michael Ross II (077458) (Middlesex and Statewide) · Kennedy v. State

2. ““The impartial trial atmosphere, the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, the defendant's] ... credibility, his presumption of innocence, and any chance wheth er guilty or innocent that he had of a successful defense, all were denied, along with his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Scully

3. “The trial judge, under the federal system, is not only permitted, but it is his duty, to participate directly in the trial, and to facilitate its orderly progress and clear the path of petty obstructions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ruiz v. Estelle