United States v. Doss’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.2d 265 · 1977
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. O'Dell (1986), Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education (1981)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · United States v. Nixon
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a person under our system of law has been indicted for a crime, the government has no more right to call him before a grand jury and question him about that crime than it has to call an unwilling defendant to the stand during trial of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We find no constitutional, statutory or case authority for employment of the grand jury as a discovery instrument to help the government prepare evidence to convict an already indicted defendant. Such a use of the grand jury would pervert its constitutional and historic function. [Id. at 276 (citing U.S. v. Lawn, 115 F.Supp. 674, 677 (S.D.N.Y.1953); Boone v. People, 148 Ill. 440, 448-50 , 36 N.E. 99 (1894); State v. Clifford, 86 Iowa 550, 53 N.W. 299, 300 (1892); In re Nat’l Window Glass Workers, 287 F. 219, 227-28 (N.D.Ohio 1922); U.S. v. Kimball, 117 F. 156, 167 (1902))].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“caused the defendant to be brought before it, without subpoena or opportunity to seek and take advice, for the purpose of extracting testimony from him, with a view to prosecuting him for perjury and without any purpose of obtaining from him any evidence upon which, in whole or in part, it could find a true bill against anyone for any offense committed in whole or in part in Nebraska [the state in which the grand jury was sitting] ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lemberes v. State
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.