United States v. Formanczyk’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 526 · 1991
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
May 2007
most recently cited
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Stafford v. Oklahoma · Strong v. United States · United States v. Wright
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) failure to learn of the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is material, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) it will probably result in an acquittal upon retrial of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The seminal case regarding the duty of the government to identify or produce its informants is Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). In Roviaro , the Court recognized “the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law.” Id. at 59 , 77 S.Ct. at 627 . It specified, however, that “[w]here the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.” Id. at 60-61 , 77 S.Ct. at 627-28 . The Court declined to adopt rigid guidelines as to when the privilege should apply, opting instead for requiring the lower courts to balance, under the particular circumstances of each case, “the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Id. at 62 , 77 S .Ct. at 628; see also United States v. One 1986 Chevrolet Van, 927 F.2d 39, 43 (1st Cir.1991); Ass’n. for Reduction of Violence v. Hall, 734 F.2d 63, 66 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Estrella, 567 F.2d 1151, 1152-53 (1st Cir.1977).”
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.