James v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 467 · 1969
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Gordon v. United States (1971), United States v. Bright (1980)
85 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Holland 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`When circumstances make an exact description of instrumentalities a virtual impossibility, the searching officer can only be expected to describe the generic class of items he is seeking.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The appellants allege that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motions for severance, both as to the joinder of offenses and as to the join-der of defendants. In regard to any allegation of misjoinder of offenses, the relevant rule is Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule should not be in-interpreted in a technical or legalistic sense . . . [citations omitted] Where, as here, the offenses arose out of a series of connected acts, trial convenience dictates ‘that the govern ment should not be made to prove the same facts more than once.’ [citations omitted] “Similarly, there was no misjoinder of defendants. Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure In conjunction with Rule 8 (a) joinder of offenses, Rule 8(b) has the effect of permitting joinder of defendants where their alleged violations of law have arisen out of the same act or series of acts [citations omitted] “Having found that there was no misjoinder of offenses or defendants under Rule 8, it is still necessary to determine whether there was sufficient prejudice to require a severance under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . [citations omitted] The existence of prejudice, in large measure, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case . . . [citations omitted] and it is axiomatic that the granting of a severance is within the discretion of the trial judge . [citations omitted] The burden of demonstrating prejudice is a difficult one, and the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“gambling paraphernalia ... records, sales receipts, customers' lists, shipping orders, supplies, machine equipment, machine tools and hand tools for the manufacture of gambling paraphernalia ....”
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.