United States v. Brannon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 8 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “compelling reason for an immediate remedy,”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Gustafson · In re Gustafson

2. ““7.1 Inherent power of the court. The court has the inherent power to punish any contempt in order to protect the rights of the defendant and the interests of the public by assuring that the administration of criminal justice shall not be thwarted. The trial judge has the power to cite and, if necessary, punish summarily anyone who, in his presence in open court, willfully obstructs the course of criminal proceedings. “7.2 Admonition and warning. No sanction other than censure should be imposed by the trial judge unless (i) it is clear from the identity of the offender and the character of his acts that disruptive conduct was willfully contemptuous, or (ii) the conduct warranting the sanction was preceded by a clear warning that the conduct is impermissible and that specified sanctions may be imposed for its repetition. “7.3 Notice of intent to use contempt power; postponement of adjudication. (a) The trial judge should, as soon as practicable after he is satisfied that courtroom misconduct requires contempt proceedings, inform the alleged offender of his intention to institute such proceedings. (b) The trial judge should consider the advisability of deferring adjudication of contempt for courtroom misconduct of a defendant, an attorney or a witness until after the trial, and should defer such a proceeding unless prompt punishment is imperative. “7.4 Notice of charges and opportunity to be heard. Before imposing any punishment for criminal contempt, the judge should give the ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Gustafson · State v. Goeller

3. “. Although there is authority that in-court contempts can be punished without notice of charges or an opportunity to be heard, such a procedure has little to commend it, is inconsistent with the basic notions of fairness, and is likely to bring disrespect upon the court. Accordingly, notice and at least a brief opportunity to be heard should be afforded as a matter of course. Nothing in this standard, however, implies that a plenary trial of contempt charges is required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Gustafson