United States v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has long been the rule of this Circuit that the failure to demand a speedy trial constitutes a waiver of that right, (citing United States v. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475 , 478 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 880 , 79 S.Ct. 118 , 3 L.Ed.2d 109 (1958); United States v. Smalls, 438 F.2d 711 , 714 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 933 , 91 S.Ct. 2261 , 29 L.Ed.2d 712 (1971)); cf. Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 , 36, 90 S.Ct. 1564 , 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970). While Rule 8 of this court, concerning the prompt disposition of criminal cases, dispenses with the need for demand, waiver may still be considered as a relevant factor in deciding whether or not the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.” United States v. Singleton, 460 F.2d 1148 , at 1151 (2d Cir. 1972), See also Barker v. Wingo, supra.”

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

2. ““First, at the time a deposition of a prosecution witness is taken the defense may not be prepared adequately to cross-examine, while prior trial testimony is used only at a time when the defendant is presumably ready for trial. The second difference is that the testimony of a witness at a prior trial has been subjected at least once to the crucible of in-court scrutiny by judge and jury. This is, perhaps, another way of saying that testimony in the solemn, impressive atmosphere of a ... courtroom, before the eyes of a keen judge and an observant jury, may be given with a little more care, deliberation and accuracy on the part of the witness than it might be given [otherwise].” (footnotes omitted).”

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

3. “The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits, such as were sometimes admitted in civil cases, being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Canon