United States v. Faison’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 292 · 1982
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Downing (1985), United States v. Brooks (1982)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Mattox v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Nogueras v. Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"in exercising discretion a trial judge must consider all relevant circumstances, including; the importance of the absent witness for the case; the nature and extent of cross-examination in the earlier testimony; the nature of the illness; the expected time of recovery; the reliability of the evidence of the probable duration of the illness; and any special circumstances counseling against delay."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the court’s error — one of non-constitutional dimensions, deprived Fai-son, at most, of the opportunity to present Mancuso’s testimony live, an outright reversal for a new trial is inappropriate without further inquiry. By now Mancuso had undergone surgery. Whether he has recovered sufficiently to testify is not known. If his health is such that he would be unavailable at a new trial, granting a new trial would serve no purpose. Faison already had a trial at which Mancuso’s prior testimony was read to the jury. If he could testify at a new trial, however, Faison should be afforded the opportunity to have him do so. Thus the case will be remanded to the trial court for appropriate proceedings to determine whether Mancuso would now be available to testify. If he would be, the trial court is directed to grant a new trial.” Faison at 297-298 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.