United States v. Griffin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “largely attenuate[s] any prejudice flowing from the establishment of the variance.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Anthony John Sposato · 430 F. Supp. 609 - United States v. Walker

2. “Now, suppose — just because I don’t know what your findings are going to be — but suppose that you do not find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants Montano and Griffin were a part of the same single overall conspiracy. I don’t know whether you can find that or not. That, of course, is your determination. There is an alternate area of the law that I wish to call to your attention, and that has to do with the individual conspiracies that may be found in this indictment. If you do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Montano conspired with defendant Griffin — that is they were in the same and single conspiracy — but find that the defendant Montano did conspire with Lorenzo Rodriguez and or Maria Bueno and or with others you may, if the evidence so convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt, find defendant Montano guilty of the conspiracy. However, under this circumstance — to which I’m just making reference — you cannot consider any evidence except that which was admitted against defendant Montano. Likewise if you do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Griffin conspired with defendant Montano in one single overall conspiracy, but find that the defendant Griffin did conspire with Lorenzo Rodriguez and/or Maria Bueno or with others you may, if the evidence so convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant Griffin guilty of conspiracy. ( 464 F.2d at 1357 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 430 F. Supp. 609 - United States v. Walker

3. “Although the appellants charge that the ‘delay in the case at bar was inordinate . and unjustified,’ they fail to set forth anything other than bald conclusions which might even approach the possibility that the government’s purpose was to gain a tactical advantage over them. In short, the appellants’ concluso-ry allegations are without persuasion that they have been denied the right to due process. (464 F.2d at 1355)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 F. Supp. 1033 - United States v. Mandel