United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.2d 337 · 1974
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably United States v. McCown (1983), United States v. Crow Dog (1976)
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Marion · Parham v. Cortese · Fuentes v. Shevin · Ross v. United States · American Tobacco Co. v. Green
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an unreasonable pre-accusation delay, coupled with prejudice to the defendant, may violate the Fifth Amendment, * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is often said that unreasonable delay must coincide with prejudice before the due process clause requires reversal and hence many courts, after finding lack of prejudice, refuse to consider the reasons for delay. (Citations omitted.) Since we prefer to view the due process claim as one involving a balancing process, we hesitate to say that prejudice could never be presumed in an outrageous case of unjustified delay. (Citation omitted.) We agree that, at least where the government is not engaging in intentional delay in order to gain a tactical advantage over the accused, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. (Citations omitted.) There is no showing that the government sought such a tactical advantage here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"The interest of the defendant in preparing his defense while events are still recent and his memory still fresh must be taken seriously by the government in deciding to continue the undercover operation, and it must not be forgotten that the withholding of notice to the suspect is a conscious and deliberate act on the part of the police. * * * Even the legitimate excuse of a continuing undercover investigation may be stretched to the breaking point; at some point, the accused's right to due process of law must prevail. * * * On balance, then, we believe that it was reasonable to delay the indictment until Crosby terminated his services, but it should have been brought promptly thereafter."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.