Bacon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
449 F.2d 933 · 1971
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978), Arnsberg v. United States (1985)
38 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
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. § 3149 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 28 U.S.C. § 1783 · 28 U.S.C. § 657
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Johnson 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 3149. Release of material witnesses If it appears by affidavit that the testimony of a person is material in any criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure his presence by subpena, a judicial officer shall impose conditions of release pursuant to section 3146. No material witness shall be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Added Pub.L. 89-465, § 3 (a), June 22, 1966, 80 Stat. 216 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the case of a witness who is to testify at a trial.” Id. We currently see no reason that the showing of materiality as to the witness in a trial, where proceedings are public and bound by the charges in the indictment, should be any different from the showing required for impracticability. Because Al-Hussayen had already been indicted by the time of al-Kidd's arrest, we do not address whether Bacon's statement that grand juries are”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[O]ne proposition should be apparent: the arrest and detention of a citizen as a material witness requires a showing of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because under the Fourth Amendment “the essential element is the physical restraint placed upon the person, not the purpose behind the restraint.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.