United States v. Celis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964 (D.C.Cir.1976), this court instructed that “[disclosure by the government must be made at such a time as to allow the defense to use the favorable material effectively in the preparation and presentation of its case, even if satisfaction of this criterion requires pre-trial disclosure.” Id. at 973 . Similarly, in Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , the Supreme Court had observed that “[t]he constitutional error, if any, in this case was the Government’s failure to assist the defense by disclosing information that might have been helpful in conducting the cross-examination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 767 F. Supp. 2d 12 - United States v. Clarke

2. “The district court balanced the reality of potentially life-threatening dangers to the protected witnesses and their families, and the defense need to prepare to cross-examine the protected witnesses by allowing defense access to the true identities of the protected witnesses days before their testimony and, when shown to be necessary for those purposes; allowed investigation'using these true identities in the United States and in Colombia.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 951 F. Supp. 2d 148 - United States v. Martinez-Amaya

3. “(1) the evidence must have been discovered since trial; (2) the party seeking the new trial must show diligence in the attempt to procure the newly discovered evidence; (3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) it must be material to the issues involved; and (5) [it must be] of such nature that in a new trial it would probably produce an acquittal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 766 F. Supp. 2d 106 - United States District Court v. Wilson