United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 147 · 1979
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Drew v. State (1987), United States v. Slocum (1983)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 1014
Relies on Rachal v. United States · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Ernest C. Hamilton, Lloyd E. Hennigan, Jr., Philip J. Shaheen, Jr., and Henri Loridans · United States v. Rachal · United States v. Beasley
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant who challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion has the burden of showing that: (1) the evidence was discovered following trial, (2) the failure to learn of the evidence was due to no lack of due diligence on the part of the defendant, (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, (4) the evidence is material, and (5) the evidence is such that a new trial will probably produce an acquittal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Newly discovered evidence is evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is within the trial court's sound discretion, subject to our review only for abuse”
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.