United States v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
568 F.2d 411 · 1978
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Cuesta (1979), United States v. Davis (1985)
58 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Relies on Bronston v. United States · Giordano v. United States · United States v. Gomez-Rojas · United States v. Stone · United States v. Chapin
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[M]ateriality of statements made in a grand jury investigation may more readily appear than that of similar evidence offered on an issue in civil or criminal litigation, since the purpose of the investigation is to get at facts which will enable the grand jury to determine whether formal charges should be made against someone rather than prove matters directly at issue. (citation omitted) Leads to further inquiry may be of material worth to an investigation. Thus the test of materiality is whether the false testimony has the natural effect or tendency to impede, influence or dissuade the grand jury from pursuing its investigation. (citations omitted) A grand jury's investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed; its investigation proceeds step-by-step and a false statement by a witness, such as Stone, in any step, even though not relevant in an essential sense to the ultimate issues pending before the grand jury, may be material in that it tends to influence or impede the course of the investigation. (citations omitted) Materiality must only be established as of the time the witness answers were given since materiality refers merely to the relationship between the interrogation and the grand jury's objective at the time.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the statement need not be material to any particular issue but may be material to any proper matter of inquiry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he applicable standard of review is not whether we think the evidence sufficient but whether a reasonable jury could so conclude beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.