United States v. Iaconetti’s Empirical Analysis
540 F.2d 574 · 1976
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably United States v. Evans (1978), United States v. Mandel (1979)
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 United States v. White · Lopez v. United States · Arizona v. California · United States v. Annunziato
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (24) Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE COURT: .... I believe ... the interest of justice and the purposes of the rules of evidence ... are best served by the admission of the statement. However, that statement may not be admitted unless the proponent, here the government, makes it known to the adversary party, here the defendant, sufficiently in advance of the trial, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare. Here that opportunity was not given but ... I am willing to give the defendant a continuance. Do you wish a continuance. You can still maintain your exception_ If you want a continuance, I will give it to you. MR. WASSERSTEIN: I don’t know how that can be cured by a continuance at this time. I would still maintain my exception. >!<♦**>*«* MR. GLEESON [prosecutor]: Just for the record, if I may, certainly there was notice as to the existence of the statement, because it was on tape, that was provided to counsel. THE COURT: When was it provided? MR. GLEESON: Well in advance of the trial. I think approximately two weeks. THE COURT: Did you tell him you were going to use it? MR. GLEESON: Your Honor, he did have the statement in his possession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts”
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.