United States v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A seizure] is abrupt, is effected with force or the threat of it and often in demeaning circumstances, and, in the case of arrest, results in a record involving stigma. A subpoena is served in the same manner as other legal process; it involves no stigma whatever; if the time for appearance is inconvenient, this can generally be altered; and it remains at all times under the control and supervision of a court. Id. quoting United States v. Doe (Schwartz), 457 F.2d 895, 898 (2d Cir.1972), [cert. denied, 410 U.S. 941 , 93 S.Ct. 1376 , 35 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973) ].”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban v. Simms · 634 So. 2d 613 - Doe v. State

2. “" 'There is no basis for constructing a wall of privacy against the grand jury which does not exist in casual contacts with strangers. Hence, no intrusion into an individual’s privacy results from compelled execution of handwriting or voice exemplars; nothing is being exposed to the grand jury that has not previously been exposed to the public at large.’ ” Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14 , 35 L. Ed. 2d at 79 , 93 S. Ct. at 772 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Md. App. 472 - Reed v. State · 262 Ill. App. 3d 464 - People v. Rende

3. ““[T]he Fourth Amendment has not been held to forbid compulsory production of books and papers before a grand jury save in two types of situations: One is stated in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S. Ct. 524 , 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886), where the majority, over the dissent of Mr. Justice Miller and Chief Justice Waite, held that compulsory production of incriminating documents before a grand jury violated not only the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, as all the Justices agreed, hut the Fourth as well. While Dean Wigmore believed that ‘the Supreme Court has to a large extent recanted that part of the Boyd dicta which would apply the Fourth Amendment to an order to produce a document, properly a Fifth Amendment concern,’ 8 Wigmore, Evidence sec. 2264, at 381-84, n. 4 (McNaughton rev. 1961), we need not consider this, since, as developed at the outset, Mrs. Schwartz was not directed to produce anything that was testimonial in nature. The other situation is reflected in the statement in Hale v. Henkel, supra, 201 U.S. at 76 , 26 S. Ct. at 379 , 50 L. Ed. 652 , that a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms ‘may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment.’ We note that in Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208 , 66 S. Ct. 494 , 90 L. Ed. 614 (1941), the Court in referring to the problem, spoke of ‘the Fourth [Amendment], if applicable,’ which might mean that protection against too sweeping sub”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Washington