In the Matter of Alphonse Persico’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 5 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We hold that in contempt proceedings initiated when a witness who has been granted ‘derivative use’ immunity refuses to answer questions propounded by a grand jury because he claims he is entitled to a hearing to ascertain whether the questions posed are the product of unlawful electronic surveillance the witness is not entitled to a plenary suppression hearing to test the legality of that surveillance. We hold that the refusal would be permissible only if there is an absence of a necessary court order or if there is a concession from the Government that the surveillance was not in conformity with statutory requirements or if there is a prior judicial adjudication that the surveillance was unlawful.” [Emphasis in original] 491 F.2d at 1162 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 413 F. Supp. 1214 - Langella v. COM'R OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NY · 430 F. Supp. 1071 - In Re Proceedings to Enforce Grand Jury Subpoenas

2. “As noted, though Congress prescribed that illegal wiretap evidence must be excluded from all grand jury proceedings, hearings to suppress evidence were not to be permitted during such proceedings. These seemingly inconsistent policy determinations can be reconciled only by interpreting the statute as requiring exclusion only when it is clear that a suppression hearing is unnecessary, as when the Government concedes that the electronic surveillance was unlawful or when the invalidity of the surveillance is patent, such as, for example, when no prior court order was obtained, or when the unlawfulness of the Government's surveillance has been established in a prior judicial proceeding. In re Persico, 491 F.2d 1156, 1161 (2d Cir. 1974). (emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re United States · 413 F. Supp. 1321 - Application of US Authorizing Interception, Etc.

3. “[a]ny aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court ... may move to suppress the contents of any wire or oral communication, ... or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that— (i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted; (ii) the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or (iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Civella · 434 F. Supp. 379 - Ostrer v. Aronwald