Speed v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If you find the Government has proven the elements of count one beyond a reason able doubt, then you must consider whether the defendant acted with justifiable or excusable cause. This involves special rules that I will now explain to you. A Correctional Officer may stop or detain an inmate for a legitímate purpose, and the Correctional Officer may use the amount of force that appears reasonably necessary to make or maintain the stop. This is the amount of force that an ordinarily careful and intelligent person in the officer’s position would think necessary. If the Correctional Officer uses only the force that appears reasonably necessary, the person stopped may not interfere with the Correctional Officer even if the stop later turns out to have been unlawful. If the person stopped does interfere, he acts without justifiable or excusable cause. If the Correctional Officer uses more force than appears reasonably necessary, the person stopped may defend against the excessive force, using only the amount of force that appears reasonably necessary for his protection. But if that person uses more force than is reasonably necessary for protection, he acts without justifiable or excusable cause. The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without justifiable or excusable cause. If you find that the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the offense and that the defendant acted without justifiable or excusable cause, then it ”

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

2. “[T]he trial court should instruct the jury that in order to prove simple assault when the victim is a police officer and the defendant raises the defense of self-defense, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (a) That at the time of the alleged assault the complainant was a member of a police force operating in the District of Columbia, the defendant did know or had reason to know that the complainant was a member of such force, and the officer was engaged in official police duties; and (b) That the defendant assaulted the officer without justifiable and excusable cause; and that (c) [defining justifiable and excusable cause]. [[Image here]] The court should instruct the jurors that if they do not find that the government has met its burden of proof on (a), the defendant was entitled to defend himself or herself against the use of any force and instructions (b) and (c) are inapplicable to their determination. The court then should instruct on the general right of self-defense, explicitly informing the jury that the government bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was not acting in self-defense.”

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

3. “Once a defendant raises the defense of justified self-defense, the government then bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting with justification or legal right. To carry this burden ... the government must prove the predicate facts limiting the defendant’s right to defend himself or herself were present: that the victim was a police officer; that the officer was engaged in official duties at the time of the assault; and that the officer was not using excessive force.”

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