United States v. Nazzaro’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 302 · 1973
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Parodi (1983)
83 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County · United States v. Dellinger · United States v. Brandt · United States v. Grunberger
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no dispute among the parties that the judge participated extensively in the examination of all witnesses. Several such instances, however, occurred only “where [it was] necessary to clarify testimony and assist the jury in understanding the evidence,” United States v. DeSisto, 289 F.2d 833 , 834 (2nd Cir. 1961). But “while it might be proper for a judge to question witnesses to clarify issues, such intervention should not become the rule.” United States v. D’Anna, 450 F.2d 1201 , 1206 (2nd Cir. 1971). It is clear from the record that on frequent occasions during the trial of this case, the judge’s questions unmistakably rehabilitated a prosecution witness whose credibility had been undermined by defense counsel. At other times, the court’s questions appeared designed to inject doubt or uncertainty as to the credibility of a defense witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gayle v. LeFevre“[t]here is simply no handy tool with which to gauge a claim that a judge’s conduct ... so severely prejudiced the defense as to make a fair trial impossible, .. . [the court must give] close scrutiny to each tile in the mosaic of the trial [to] determine whether instances of improper behavior or bias, when considered individually or taken together as a whole, may have reached that point ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A trial judge in criminal, as in civil cases, may, indeed must, be more than a mere moderator or umpire in a contest between two parties in an arena before him. He should take part where necessary to clarify testimony and assist the jury in understanding the evidence and its task of weighing it in the resolution of issues of fact.”
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.