In re Bruno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As we pointed out in Bruno, supra, at 789-90 , the federal prosecutors emphasize, however, in their “Guilty Plea Memorandum” filed in the case of U.S. v. Fortunato N. Perri, Sr., supra: The government is not required to prove that the defendant actually used a wire communication in interstate commerce or that he even intended that anything be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of a wire ... communication to further, or to advance, or to carry out the scheme. Id. at 4-5, n. 3. However, further explaining the elements of the federal crime of wire fraud, the Memorandum goes on to say that: The government must show that the defendant knew that the use of the wire communication would follow in the ordinary course of business or events, or that the defendant should have anticipated that the wire communication in interstate commerce would be used. [Citing:] Third Circuit Instructions at 6.18.1343-1. (Emphasis added.) The Indictment contains no allegation that Perri’s call to Alfano was made in the ordinary course of business so that Bruno should have reasonably foreseen “that the wire communication in interstate commerce would be used.” The obvious reason no such allegation is made in this case is that no such allegation is remotely supportable: Perri’s call to Alfano described in paragraph 37 on pages 28-29 of the Indictment certainly cannot be credibly alleged to have been made in the ordinary course of business of the Traffic Court. The fact is that any allegations perta”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lowry

2. “We cannot uphold the defendants’ mail fraud convictions ... because any deprivation of the honest services of public employees had been completed in each instance before notice of the disposition was mailed, the mailings of notices of case disposition as a matter of law were not in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. United States v. Cross and Melograne, supra at 150. The court of appeals pointed out that: The mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is part of the execution of the fraud. [Citing] Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 95 , 65 S.Ct. 148 , 89 L.Ed. 88 (1944). The court then cited its own opinion United States v. Tarnopol, 561 F.2d 466, 471-72 (3d Cir.1977) and quoted the following portion of that opinion. In each case the question is whether or not the “mailings were sufficiently closely related to respondent’s scheme to bring his conduct within the statute.” Moreover ... “the close relation of the mailings to the scheme does not turn on time or space, but on the dependence in some way of the completion of the scheme or the prevention of its detection on the mailings in question.” Tims, mailings taking place after the object of the scheme has been accomplished, or before its accomplishment has begun, are not sufficiently closely related to the scheme to support a mail fraud prosecution. (Emphasis added.) Id. See, also, Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370 , 80 S.Ct. 1171 , 4 L.Ed.2d ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lowry

3. “Jules Melograne was a judge on the Statutory Appeals Court in Allegheny County which exercised de novo review of traffic offenses. Cross was the supervisor of the court and Nunzio Melograne was a tipstaff in that court. They were charged with “fixing” traffic tickets so as to achieve “Not Guilty” dispositions in some cases and “Guilty” dispositions in some cases. They were convicted of conspiracy to deprive Pennsylvania residents of their civil right to a fair trial and of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions to deprive residents of their civil rights but reversed the convictions of conspiracy to, commit mail fraud. 8 $ $”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lowry