United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.2d 681 · 1978
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. Decoster (1976), United States v. Sblendorio (1987)
54 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 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
Relies on Geders v. United States · Gebardi v. United States · Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, A. F. L. Local 1802 · Costello v. United States · United States v. Beekman
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Counsel is not required to waste the court's time with futile or frivolous motions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, we doubt that the witness was an accomplice.... But, in any case, we have held that the uncorrobated evidence of an accomplice will convict the defendant. United States v. Miceli, 446 F.2d 256 , 258 (1st Cir.1971). Though it is prudent for the court to give a cautionary instruction ... failure to do so is not automatic error especially where the testimony is not incredible or otherwise insubstantial on its face. United States v. House, 471 F.2d 886 , 888 (1st Cir.1973). The principal witness’s testimony in this case was “generally consistent and credible.” Id. Moreover, aspects of the testimony were corroborated by documentary evidence and the tapes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] witness’s availability is not to be decided on the basis of his physical presence in the court room or his accessibility by writ of habeas corpus or by subpoena.... [A] witness’s practical and legal availability is to be determined on the basis of his disposition and relationship toward the parties.... Where the court finds that an uncalled witness is clearly favorably disposed toward one of the parties, an instruction, if requested, may properly be given that the jury may draw an inference favorable to the other party.... In those cases where the bias or disposition of an uncalled witness is not able to be ascertained, “the failure to produce is open to an inference against both parties, the particular strength of the inference against either depending on the circumstances.” (Emphasis deleted.) 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 288, at 171 (3d ed. 1940).”
1 later decision 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.