United States v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 772 · 1976
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably United States v. Payner (1980), United States v. Washington (1977)
58 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 28 U.S.C. § 515 · 28 U.S.C. § 543
Relies on Massiah v. United States · Allen v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Costello v. United States · McNabb v. United States
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““first, to eliminate prejudice to a defendant in a criminal prosecution; second, to ‘help translate the assurances of the United States Attorneys into consistent performance.’ ” Id. at 647 (footnotes omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a one-time sanction to encourage - 44 - uniformity of practice . . . between the Strike Force and the United States Attorney.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the prosecutor believes that a witness is a potential defendant he should not seek to compel his testimony before the grand jury without informing him that he may be charged and that he should seek independent legal advice concerning his rights.”
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.