United States v. Pacelli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Supreme Court has long made clear that certain rights are implicitly conferred by the Constitution’s estab lishment of a national Government intended to be ‘paramount and supreme within its sphere of action.’ ... (Citation omitted) One of these is the right to testify at a federal trial at response to the request or command of a federal district court. Our federal government has a particular interest in assuring a prospective witness that he or she will be free to respond by attending the trial of a federal indictment as a witness without being prevented from doing so by threats, molestation or force. Otherwise, the foundations of federal justice would be undermined.” (Pacelli at 1118 )”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 95 F. Supp. 2d 136 - Benedict v. Town of Newburgh · 207 F. Supp. 2d 225 - Catletti v. County of Orange

2. ““Accepting the government’s assertion that these nondisclosures were inadvertent, we cannot agree with its characterization of them as ‘harmless error.’ Although appellant’s counsel possessed an abundance of impeaching material which lie exploited at trial, none of this information conveyed quite so forcefully as Lip-sky’s letter to Morvillo the desperate state of Lipsky’s mind after he had caused a mistrial by perjuring himself in the previous narcotics prosecution against Pacelli. The letter, furthermore, contains a blatant lie to the effect that his perjury, which caused the mistrial, had been unintentional rather than deliberate. Appellant’s counsel would probably have sought to make this letter the ‘capstone’ of his attack on Lipsky’s credibility, cf. United States v. Miller, supra, and argued that it revealed a frantic — even mentally disturbed — person who was ready to tell any lie to anyone in order to save himself from a murder conviction in the state court. Denial of the opportunity to use such forceful impeaching material bearing on the credibility of the government’s key witness mandates a new trial.” (footnotes omitted) 491 F.2d at 1119.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Sperling · 404 F. Supp. 1360 - United States v. Guillette

3. “implicitly conferred by the Constitution's establishment of a national Government”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 629 F. Supp. 2d 1336 - Aque v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · Catletti Estate of Catletti v. Rampe H E