United States v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree with the Government that the Murphy rule is controlling in the instant situation and we do not think this presents any necessary conflict with the Cownselman case. Counselman was concerned with the situation where the questioning sovereign is also the prosecuting sovereign. In such a situation, the constitutional problems posed by the Fifth Amendment are not complicated by considerations of federalism. Where the questioning sovereign is a State, however, and the prosecuting sovereign is the Federal Government, problems of federalism — which also of course are constitutional in nature — affect the Fifth Amendment question. And it is precisely this situation that Murphy controls, preventing the use of the compelled testimony by the Federal Government, but not preventing prosecution provided that the Federal Government has an independent source for its evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 339 F. Supp. 1154 - United States v. Meyers

2. ““The Government contends that a motion to suppress the indictment is not the proper method to raise the issue of a prior grant of immunity, and that it should be raised by a motion to suppress evidence to which the grant of immunity is claimed to attach. . . . We reject the Government’s contention. ... If, as he contends, McDaniel is entitled to transactional immunity, a motion to suppress the indictment is clearly the only means of accomplishing that end. The authorities recognize that a motion to quash the indictment is the proper method of raising this issue. 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton ed.1961), § 2282(4), p. 519; Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 145 , 69 S.Ct. 1000 , 93 L.Ed. 1264 . . . (1949); Edwards v. United States, 312 U.S. 473 , 61 S.Ct. 669 , 85 L.Ed. 957 .. . (1941) . . . .” ( 449 F.2d at 835 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 356 F. Supp. 1091 - United States v. Dornau

3. ““The circumstances of this case, however, are not ordinary, for we are faced with the fact that the United States District Attorney requested and received a transcript of the compelled state testimony. We conclude that this conduct violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights and constitutes a prima facie ‘use’ of the testimony which is prohibited by the Murphy exclusionary rule.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 359 F. Supp. 684 - United States v. Dornau