United States v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.2d 264 · 1972
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1994 · most notably United States v. Polizzi (1974), United States v. Vaccaro (1987)
29 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1841 (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004)
Relies on Opper v. United States · United States v. Roselli · Gorin 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he proper procedure to resolve severance problems is set out at Section 2.3 of the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance. . . . . . . The procedure set,out in the Minimum Standards should be followed. If Defendant GUILLERMO is serious about severance, he is entitled to have his case heard; however, he has no carte blanche to inspect a co-defendant’s statement simply to determine whether he should prove for severance. Indeed, Section 2.3(c) makes it clear that a motion for severance will, in most instances, be made prior to inspection of statements of co-defendants: When such information would assist the court in ruling on a motion for severance of defendants, the court may order the prosecuting attorney to disclose any statements made by the defendants which he intends to introduce in evidence at the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chung v. Lanham“Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
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.