United States v. Rosner’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 269 · 1975
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably United States v. Stofsky (1975), United States v. Avellino (1998)
46 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Giglio v. United States · Santobello v. New York · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · Pyle v. State of Kansas
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“additional evidence tending further to impeach the credibility of a witness whose character had already been shown to be questionable”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he standards governing a motion for a new trial based on evidence available to the government before trial vary according to the government’s conduct relative to the information. If the government deliberately suppresses evidence or ignores evidence of such high value that it could not have escaped its attention, ‘a new trial is warranted if the evidence is merely material or favorable to the defense.’ United States v. Kahn [supra, 287]. However, when the government’s failure to disclose is inadvertent, a new trial is required only if there is ‘a significant chance that this added item, developed by skilled counsel as it would have been could have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction.’ Id.; United States v. Miller, 411 F.2d 825, 832 (2 Cir. 1969); see United States v. Keogh, 391 F.2d 138, 147-48 (2 Cir. 1968).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n appellate court must weigh whether or not there is in reality a 'significant chance' that the disclosure would have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to prevent a conviction.”
3 later decisions 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.