United States v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court has the broad discretion 'to comment reasonably upon the evidence, being careful not to become an advocate for any of the parties.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Bizzell · United States v. Pearson

2. “The district court overruled the April 7 Motion to Suppress on grounds of timeliness and on the merits. On April 8 a mistrial was declared for other reasons. A new trial commenced on April 9. Not until the 20th day of the new trial, namely, on May 19, 1980, did defendant “renew” his motion to suppress. The renewed motion alleged for the first time that the evidence should be suppressed because the scope of the search warrant was too broad. The district court concluded that the May 19 motion to suppress was not a renewal of the earlier motion, but rather was a new motion alleging a new reason why the evidence should be suppressed. The court overruled the new motion stating that “... it was not filed in accordance with the rules; it is not the renewal of another motion, it’s a new motion, and it -is called a renewal to try to get around the rule.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 provides: (b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the' general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The following must be raised prior to trial: (3) Motions to suppress evidence; (f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by a party to raise defense or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, ... shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Appellant further argues that since the dis”

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

3. “While the record does suggest on the basis of one officer’s testimony that the execution of the warrant may have been unlawful, it also contains testimony from another officer and a person who had been inside the residence that the officers did knock and announce their authority, whereupon they heard such scuffling from inside the residence as to constitute exigent circumstances that would justify immediate entry. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); United States v. Clemons, 503 F.2d 486 (8th Cir.1974); United States v. Manning, 448 F.2d 992 (2d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 995 , 92 S.Ct. 541 , 30 L.Ed.2d 548 (1971). Under these circumstances, we conclude that there was enough evidence before the trial judge to satisfy him that the warrant was properly executed. 638 F.2d pp. 202-203.”

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