United States v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 477 · 1986
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Specht v. Jensen (1988), United States v. Hardwell (1996)
47 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5848 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Costello v. United States · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Michelson v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · Commissioner v. Engle
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The witnesses should be clearly directed, when [Rule 615] is invoked . . . that they are not to discuss the case . . . with anyone other than counsel for either side.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find no substance to the claim of error. Such an attempt to prevent trial by attacking alleged legal errors in the grand jury proceedings is generally rejected. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 , 76 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); United States v. Addington, 471 F.2d 560, 568 (10th Cir.1973). The remedy of dismissal of indictment is an extraordinary one applied to insure proper standards of conduct by the prosecution. An indictment may be dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct so flagrant that there is some significant infringement on the grand jury’s ability to exercise independent judgment. United States v. Pino, 708 F.2d 523, 530 (10th Cir.1983). Challenges going only to the instructions given to the grand jury as to the elements of the offenses are not grounds for dismissal of an indictment that is valid on its face. United States v. Addington, 471 F.2d at 568 . We likewise feel that the complaints made here would not justify dismissal of an indictment. Accordingly the claim of error is rejected.”
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.