United States v. Bernard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

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.

1. ““Conduct innocent in the eyes of the untrained may carry entirely different ‘messages’ to the experienced or trained observer.” Davis v. United States, 133 U.S. App.D.C. 172 ,174, 409 F.2d 458 , 460 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. den. 395 U.S. 949 , 89 S.Ct. 2031 ; 23 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969). “The test is whether ordinarily, reasonable men, possessed of the experience and knowledge of [the arresting officers] would conclude that the transaction ... was more likely than not a criminal transaction.” United States v. Wabnik, 444 F.2d 203 , 205 (2 Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 851 , 92 S.Ct. 88 , 30 L.Ed.2d 91 (1971).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Tinkle · United States v. Garcia

2. “COUNT I 1. From on or about January 1, 1978, and continuing to and including April 7, 1978, in the District of Oregon, and at various places outside the District of Oregon, HOWARD DALE BERNARD, GORDON RAE CHILDRESS, SAMMY BRICE BROCK, ROGER LEE BARD, and RUSSELL RICHARD COCHRAN, defendants herein, did willfully and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other and with diverse other persons, whose names to the Grand Jury are unknown, to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute a substance which contained methamphetamine, a Schedule II Drug Controlled Substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 812, 841(a)(1), and 846. 2. In furtherance of said conspiracy and to effect the object thereof certain of the defendants did commit, among others, the following overt acts: OVERT ACTS 1. On or about April 7, 1978, the defendants HOWARD DALE BERNARD, GORDON RAE CHILDRESS, SAMMY BRICE BROCK, ROGER LEE BARD, and RUSSELL RICHARD COCHRAN did meet at a place near Hat Rock State Park in the State of Oregon. 2. On or about April 7, 1978, the defendants HOWARD DALE BERNARD, GORDON RAE CHILDRESS, SAMMY BRICE BROCK, ROGER LEE BARD, and RUSSELL RICHARD COCHRAN did personally and physically handle portions of an apparatus capable of manufacturing methamphetamine, a Schedule II Drug Controlled Substance. 3. As further overt acts, whose purpose was to effect the object of the above-mentioned conspiracy, the Grand Jury charges and inc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Brock

3. ““We do not, of course, question that the Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength of the radio bulletin. Certainly police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause. Where, however, the contrary turns out to be true, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest.” Whiteley v. Warden of Wyoming Penitentiary, 401 U.S. at 568 , 91 S.Ct. at 1087 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ostrowski v. State