United States v. Oxman’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 1298 · 1984
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Bagley (1985), United States v. Pungitore (1990)
40 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Griffin v. California
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems clear that those tests [for materiality] have a tendency to encourage unilateral decision-making by prosecutors with respect to disclosure. . . . [T]he root of the problem is the prosecutor's tendency to adopt a retrospective view of materiality. Before trial, the prosecutor cannot know whether, after trial, particular evidence will prove to have been material. . . . Following their adversarial instincts, some prosecutors have determined unilaterally that evidence will not be material and, often in good faith, have disclosed it neither to defense counsel nor to the court. If and when the evidence emerges after trial, the prosecutor can always argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was not material.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of WHP's business with Pflaumer. App. at 918. 16 As we noted in our prior opinion, in response to defense requests for material relating to prosecution witnesses, including all agreements, the government disclosed the prior criminal records of Luciano and Frank Jock and the agreements made for their”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“relative to the federal investigation into certain activities of Charles Gillan [one of the co-defendants in this indictment] and others [conceded to include Pflaumer] during the period between June 2, 1978 and December 1979.”
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.