United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.2d 371 · 1977
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Williamson v. United States (1977), United States v. Santiago (1978)
47 federal appellate · 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. § 401 · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on United States v. Nixon · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Hoffa v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Patterson 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify ... the court ... may summarily order his confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony.... No period of such confinement shall exceed the life of ... the court proceeding ... before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While it would have been the better practice to have excused juror Ray under the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the failure to do so was such an abuse of discretion as to warrant the reversal of Mitchell’s conviction. Neither personal knowledge by Ray of appellant’s ease nor any prejudice by Ray was disclosed. ' Ray was not at the time of the trial a member of the police department. In any event, “the mere fact of membership on a police force is not presumptively a disqualification for service on a jury in a criminal trial.” Mikus v. United States, 433 F.2d 719 , 724 (2d Cir. 1970). If there was any other basis for probing into Ray’s objectivity, counsel did not seek to pursue it. To reverse a trial judge on these facts would severely limit the broad discretion that traditionally is accorded a district judge in this area. United States v. Grant, 494 F.2d 120 , 123 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 849 , 95 S.Ct. 87 , 42 L.Ed.2d 79 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify or provide other information, the court, upon such refusal, or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall exceed the life of— “(1) the court proceeding, or “(2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions, before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.