United States v. Fallen’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.2d 172 · 1974
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States v. Williams (1979), United States v. Harris (1976)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Russell · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Lubin v. Allison · Gagnon v. Scarpelli
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government’s representation to the trial court that no statements existed foreclosed the court’s exercise of any discretion. In open court, the court has the right to rely upon the truthfulness of the government’s statement. . . . The record indicates the government in good faith interpreted Rule 16(a)(1) to apply only to written or recorded statements of the defendant himself. The difficulty with this reasoning, however, is that in construing the statute the government attempted to become prosecutor and judge at the same time by representing to the court that no statements existed. [Citations omitted.] The proper approach under these circumstances is to reveal to the court what statements the government has, thus giving the court the opportunity to pass on the question of whether or not they come within the purview of Rule 16. [United States v. Fallen, supra at 174; emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant’s oral statements made to the agents prior to and at the time of the sales may constitute relevant statements under Rule 16(a)(1). Barring some showing of possible harmful effects flowing from disclosure, these statements should have been produced pursuant to the pretrial motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents,”
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.