United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 4 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Are you more apt to believe the testimony of an official of the Post Office Department, solely because he is an official of the Post Office Department, than you are to believe the testimony of the Defendant ?””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gassaway · United States v. Nash

2. ““The rule [Rule 5(a), Fed.R.Crim.P.] excludes confessions when the ‘working arrangement’ includes the illegal detention — in other words, when federal law enforcement officers induce state officers to hold the defendant illegally so that they may secure a confession. However, to bring a case within this rule there must be facts, as there were in Anderson [v. United States, 318 U.S. 350 , 63 S.Ct. 599 , 87 L.Ed. 829 ], not mere suspicion or conjecture. Here, as in United States v. Abel, 2 Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 485, 494 , affirmed, 1960, 362 U.S. 217, 226-230 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 , rehearing denied, 1960 [ 362 U.S. 984 ], 80 S.Ct. 1056 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1019 ], there is no basis on which this court can properly reverse the conclusion of the district judge. The Supreme Court's decision in that case makes plain that the mere fact that two or more agencies have the same crime or the same suspects on their books and that they are cooperating to achieve a solution does not make one the agent of the other and thus responsible for the other’s acts. In the absence of any evidence of collaboration to achieve an unlawful end, we would not be warranted in creating a rule whereby prior cooperation of state and federal officials in the investigation of crime would prohibit the admission of uncoerced confessions made during a detention by state officers which the Federal officials did not induce and were powerless to prevent.” ( 281 F.2d 344, 345 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Singleton

3. “The court may permit the defendant or his attorney and the attorney for the government to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event the court shall permit the defendant or his attorney and the attorney for the government to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions by the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Goodwin