United States v. Cozzi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no question that Kastigar bars not only evidentiary use of compelled testimony but also non-evidentiary, or derivative; use of the same. At issue here is the scope of derivative-use immunity. The case law does not say that a defendant’s immunized statements may never be used by anyone under any circumstances. Garrityfor example, clearly contemplated that the officers’ compelled testimony could be used for internal investigation purposes. 385 U.S. at 500 , 87 S.Ct. 616 (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited the use of coerced statements in “subsequent criminal proceedings”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott A. Criswell v. State of Indiana

2. “may have influenced the federal investigation, but rather how [the defendant's] statements influenced the investigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Proano