United States v. Hemmer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In assessing whether an assertion of the privilege was proper in a given case, courts have emphasized that mere speculation as to the usefulness of the informant’s testimony to the defendant is insufficient to justify disclosure of his identity____ The defendant must indicate some concrete circumstances that might justify overcoming both the public interest in encouraging the flow of information, see Roviaro, supra, and the informant’s private interest in his own safety. [The defendant] manifestly has failed to meet his burden here. The informant neither dealt directly with [the defendant] in any manner, ... nor was he a significant participant in the criminal events.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Hemmer

2. “First we would not read the standard of trustworthiness as imposing a standard so strict as to be utterly unrealistic____ On the other hand, there is no question but that Congress meant to preclude reception of exculpatory hearsay statements against penal interest unless accompanied by circumstances solidly indicating trustworthiness. This requirement goes beyond minimal corroboration. Trial judges will have to make an assessment case by case____ In cases that are open to reasonable differences, this court is unlikely to substitute its judgment for that of the district court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Hemmer