Simkin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
715 F.2d 34 · 1983
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 110 Wash. 2d 793 - In Re the Personal Restraint of King (1988), Birchall (2009)
59 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 6002 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Shillitani v. United States · Maggio v. Zeitz · Roberts v. Louisiana · Harris v. United States · Piemonte v. United States
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The judge need not, of course, accept as conclusive a contemnor’s avowed intention never to testify. United States v. Dien, supra, 598 F.2d at 745. Even if the judge concludes that it is the con temnor’s present intention never to testify, that conclusion does not preclude the possibility that continued confinement will cause the witness to change his mind. Id. What is required of the judge is a conscientious effort to determine whether there remains a realistic possibility that continued confinement might cause the contemnor to testify. The burden is properly placed on the contemnor to demonstrate that no such realistic possibility exists. As long as the judge is satisfied that the coercive sanction might yet produce its intended result, the confinement may continue. But if the judge is persuaded, after a conscientious consideration of the circumstances pertinent to the individual contemnor, that the contempt power has cased to have a coercive effect, the civil contempt remedy should be ended.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Crededio · Morgan v. Foretich“A district judge's determination whether a civil contempt sanction has lost any realistic possibility of having a coercive effect is inevitably far more speculative than his resolution of traditional factual issues. Since a prediction is involved and since that prediction concerns such uncertain matters as the likely effect of continued confinement upon a particular individual, we think a district judge has virtually unreviewable discretion both as to the procedure he will use to reach his conclusion, and as to the merits of his conclusion. [Citing Soobzokov v. CBS, Inc., 642 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir.1981); In re Grand Jury Investigation, supra . ]... We have located no decision of a court of appeals requiring a district court to take testimony from a contemnor on the issue of the utility of continued confinement or rejecting a district court's conclusion that such confinement is warranted. * * * * * *”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a warning to others who might be tempted to violate their testimonial obligations.”
4 later decisions 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.