Johnson v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The offer here made was thus to show that the informant before the court and jury was completely insensitive to the obligation of his oath and that from motivations the origin of which we can only surmise, but nevertheless apparently existent, he had, as demonstrated in a parallel case, neither compunction nor scruple against “framing” a man. We have difficulty in envisioning a situation responding more completely to the orthodox test of bias, the quality of emotional partiality. (Footnote omitted.) 521 F.2d at 560-61 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. French · Steinmark v. Parratt

2. “a. The Michigan prosecutor would never rely on [the informant] again. He needed work, which means he needed to produce for his new government employer, which may have tempted him to engage in a quick frame to demonstrate his utility. b. In view of his Michigan experience, [the informant] may have feared not only that he would no longer be used by any government as an informant, but also .that he might be subject to extensive surveillance. To avoid this, he might do anything to remain in the good graces of some state government (a source of protection). c. Any informant who would set-up a totally innocent man for conviction of a criminal offense may be so prejudiced against anyone suspected of narcotics dealings that a frame would never seem unjustified to such an informant. d. Since [the informant] indicated that he used the same modus operandi in Michigan as in Iowa, it may be that he has the same financial interest in a frame in Iowa as in Michigan. In other words, in Michigan he tried to divert the funds provided him for the purchase of narcotics to his girlfriend. To do this, he apparently used a frame to cover the diversion. He might have done the same thing in this case. e.A witness who deliberately lies about commission of criminal acts against the government that pays him must assume that lies are an acceptable means to reach the ends for which he is paid, i.e., convictions, and that he may believe that getting caught in a lie, not lying, was his mistake. The next tim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sherer v. United States

3. “The practice of the Government in employing agent-informers in narcotics cases is well known. We also know that such agents are usually not trained officers — often they are themselves addicts or former addicts. The Government must know that an eager informer is exposed to temptations to produce as many accuseds as possible at the risk of trapping not merely an unwary criminal but sometimes an unwary innocent as well. One could hardly expect such informants always to stay on the proper side of the line which separates those two cases. And since the Government chooses to utilize such agents, with the attendant risk of entrapment, it is fair to require the Government which uses this inherently dangerous procedure to take appropriate precautions to insure that no innocent man should be punished. (Footnotes omitted.) 521 F.2d at 559-60 , quoting United States v. Barnes, 486 F.2d 776, 780 (8th Cir. 1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Steinmark v. Parratt