United States v. Noah’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Presenting evidence of violations of different statutes does not create separate conspiracies out of one conspiracy. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is an agreement to commit unlawful acts. ‘The one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and hence several conspiracies because it envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one.’ Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53 , 63 S.Ct. 99, 102 , 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Neese · United States v. Anderson

2. “In a similar case, the Ninth Circuit said: “Ross moved for a separate trial pursuant to Rule 14, F.R.Crim.P., on the ground that if tried with his co-defendants he would be denied supposedly exculpatory testimony from two of them. The trial judge ruled that Ross failed to show the prejudice required by Rule 14 for a severance. The ruling will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. [Citations omitted.] “Ross made no affirmative showing that the two co-defendants would be willing to testify for him in a separate trial. When there has been an insufficient showing that a co-defendant would actually testify at a severed trial, the district court has not abused its discretion by refusing to grant a motion to sever. [Citations omitted.] “. . The burden of proving prejudice is a difficult one, and the ruling of the trial judge will rarely be disturbed on review. [Citation omitted.]” United States v. Noah, 475 F.2d 688, 696 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 119 , 38 L.Ed.2d 54 and 414 U.S. 1095 , 94 S.Ct. 728 , 38 L.Ed.2d 553 .”

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

3. “If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand jury, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a grand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss the indictment, whichever is appropriate. If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the petit jury, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in conformity with this title.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGinnis v. M. I. Harris, Inc.