Rosado v. Civiletti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Another useful point of reference is found in cases where a foreign sovereign . seeks to extradite an American citizen for trial abroad. Where extradition is sought pursuant to a valid treaty, the Supreme Court has held that the relator cannot prevent his extradition simply by alleging that the criminal process he will receive fails to accord with constitutional guaranties. See Neely [v. Henkel], supra, 180 U.S. 109 , 21 S.Ct. 302 , 45 L.Ed. 448 [ (1901) ]. Since the Constitution bears no relation to crimes committed beyond the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign sovereign, a citizen who ‘commits a crime in a foreign country cannot complain if required to submit to such modes of trial and to such punishment as the laws of that country may prescribe for its own people, unless a different mode be provided for by treaty stipulations.’ Id. at 123, 21 S.Ct. at 307 . See also Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529 , 77 S.Ct. 1409, 1412 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1544 (1957) (‘sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly ... consents to surrender its jurisdiction’). Thus, where a relator challenges the fairness of foreign process, courts ‘are bound by the existence of an extradition treaty to assume that the trial will be fair.’ Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 512 , 31 S.Ct. 704, 705 , 55 L.E. 830 (1911). In both Neely and Girard, however, minimal safeguards to ensure a fair trial in th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re the Extradition of Singh · Burt

2. “In reaching this conclusion [that the Court could address the due process concerns], we by no means imply that each element of due process as known to American criminal law must be present in a foreign criminal proceeding before Congress may give a conviction rendered by a foreign tribunal binding effect. Indeed, we are keenly sensitive to the historical and cultural limitations of our constitutional heritage, and respect the similarly indigenous underpinnings of the process accorded criminal defendants abroad.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 99 F. Supp. 2d 1358 - United States v. Fernandez-Morris · 700 F. Supp. 1470 - Esposito v. Adams

3. “At the beginning we reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government. It was recognized long before Paul successfully invoked his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in strict accordance with Roman law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 908 F. Supp. 738 - Colello v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission