Egger v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 1 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]ssues raised at trial and considered on direct appeal are not subject to collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 ,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Brett D. Sorenson · United States v. Brett D. Sorenson

2. ““Appellant complains that his absence during the trial from side-bar conferences between the Court and counsel for both sides constitutes a violation of Rule 43 F.R.Crim.P. and the Sixth Amendment. However, Egger never asked to attend any of these side-bar conferences nor was he prevented from doing so. He was, in fact, physically present throughout the trial, which is all that Rule 43 3 and the Sixth Amendment would seem to require. Any greater ‘right to be present’ was effectively waived by Egger’s failure to request it. “Appellant relies upon Stein v. United States, 313 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1962) to support his contention that a defendant’s absence from side-bar conferences can be prejudicial, and uses the rationale of Kaufman v. United States, supra [ 394 U.S. 217 , 89 S.Ct. 1068 , 22 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969)], as a basis for raising this issue in a § 2255 motion. Stein requires that before this absence will constitute prejudicial error, ‘The presence of a defendant must bear a reasonably substantial relationship to the opportunity to defend.’ Supra, p. 522. After a careful review of the record, the Stein panel concluded that there had been no prejudice to the defendant. We are of a like opinion regarding the Appellant. Egger was represented at trial by an experienced criminal defense attorney with a reputation for responsibility and effectiveness. In each of the significant side-bar conferences from which Appellant was absent, counsel for defense argued strongly and effectively ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mares v. State

3. “[g]rounds which were apparent on the original appeal cannot be made the basis for a second attack under Sec. 2255.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. I Feldman