United States v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
602 F.2d 529 · 1979
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Morrison (1981), State v. Sugar (1980)
21 federal appellate · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Weatherford v. Bursey · Economic Research Analysts, Inc. v. O'Connell · Hartel v. Long Island Railroad Company
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.
“Our approach has thus been to identify and then neutralize the taint by tailoring suitable relief appropriate in the circumstances to assure the defendant the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. The premise of our prior cases is that the constitutional infringement identified has had' or threatens some adverse effect upon the effectiveness of counsel’s representation or has produced some other prejudice to the defense. Absent such impact on the criminal proceeding, however, there is no basis for imposing a remedy in that proceeding, which can go forward with full recognition of the defendant’s right to counsel and to a fair trial. More particularly, absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate even though the violation may have been deliberate. This has been the result reached where a Fifth Amendment violation has occurred, and we have not suggested that searches and seizures contrary to the Fourth Amendment warrant dismissal of the indictment. The remedy in the criminal proceeding is limited to denying the prosecution the fruits of its transgression.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where there is a knowing invasion of the attorney-client relationship and where confidential information is disclosed to the government, we think there are overwhelming considerations militating against a standard which tests the sixth amendment violation by weighing how prejudical [sic] to the defense the disclosure is.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“was not broad enough to support the interpretation . . . that mere failure to gain evidence or tactical advantage from an intrusion (into attorney-client communications) bars any finding of sixth amendment violation.”
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.