United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.2d 31 · 1978
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably United States v. DeLuna (1985), Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith (1980)
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Glasser v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · California v. Green · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Kastigar v. United States
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court properly rejected Wright’s claim that the prosecution against him was biased because the wife of the Assistant United States Attorney who presented this case to the grand jury was allegedly a political opponent of Wright. The Justice Department's Coun sel on Professional Responsibility reviewed the investigation and concluded that there had been no misconduct. We agree that no showing of bias of the prosecutor was made here. The American Bar Association Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 1.2, provides that “A conflict of interest may arise when, for example, ... a business partner or associate or a relative has any interest in a criminal case, either as a complaining witness, a party or as counsel.” None of these circumstances was present here. We find no impropriety or appearance of impropriety.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Whether [the witness] would have maintained the position that his attorney asserted, had he actually been subpoenaed and called to the stand, is a matter of speculation upon which this court cannot base a finding that Wright was denied his due process right to a fair trial.” 588 F.2d 31, 37 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“under 'extraordinary circumstances,' due process may require that the government confer use immunity on a witness for the defendant,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.