United States v. Krasny’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 840 · 1979
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably United States v. Hinkson (2009), United States v. Kenny (1981)
54 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · McNabb v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Mesarosh v. United States · Costarelli v. Massachusetts
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) It must appear from the motion that the evidence relied on is, in fact, newly discovered, i. e., discovered after the trial; (2) the motion must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) must be material to the issues involved; and (5) must be such as, on a new trial, would probably produce an acquittal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false. (2) That without it, the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (3) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Callier v. Warden · State v. Britt“One may always ask how courts can be certain that new evidence would not create a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. Yet, we have always required a showing that the new evidence would “probably” result in an acquittal upon a new trial. We are not convinced that all cases involving some perjured testimony necessarily require new trials. Yet, as the court in United States v. Stofsky * * * observed, this is exactly where the logic of such cases as Larrison * * * leads.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Caldwell
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.