United States v. Deloach’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.2d 185 · 1974
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably United States v. Decoster (1976), State v. Fernandez (1985)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 41 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 Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Schneble v. Florida · Quercia v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — -indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] trial judge should not interrupt every argument[ 12 ] which he thinks undesirable. Here as in other areas there are ‘gray zones’ of argument which, though they should not be made, do not warrant interruption.... The problem is one of balance; a serious transgression is impermissible by definition and it is as to these that intervention by the trial judge is called for. Other deviations can be dealt with by the trial judge’s post-trial admonition to counsel to avoid repetition of any departure from proper argument. This has long been an accepted method of instructing lawyers on courtroom conduct.”
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.