Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 38 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Pedro Silva and Rodolfo Baydoun.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Pedro Silva and Rodolfo Baydoun Anchor | green | “(1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that the evidence was favorable to the defense; and (3) that the evidence was material to an issue at trial.” | 9 |
| 2 | United States v. Ronald E. Schwensow | green | “an inquiry into the amount of time that lapsed between interrogations; the scope of the second interrogation; whether new miranda warnings were given; and the degree to which police officers pursued further interrogation once the suspect had invoked his right to silence.” | 6 |
| 3 | United States v. Frederick D. Wagner | green | “is designed to prevent states from deceiving ex-convicts into believing they have the right to carry guns.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Melvin D. Woolfolk | green | “to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” | 4 |
| 5 | United States v. Melvin D. Woolfolk | green | “with great caution and is wary of second guessing the determinations of both judge and jury.” | 4 |
| 6 | United States v. Anthony Jones, Jr. | green | “we must keep in mind that 'our inquiry is factually based and requires that we give particular deference to the district court that had the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witness.” | 4 |
| 7 | United States v. Donald K. Lane | green | “physical control over a gun is remarkably easy to effect.” | 4 |
| 8 | United States v. Elizabeth Huerta | green | “under the clearly erroneous standard, 'if two permissible views exist, the fact-finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.