Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Declarations, exclamations and remarks made by the victim of a crime after the time of its occurrence are sometimes admissible upon the theory that ‘under certain external circumstances of physical shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock. Since this utterance is made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses, and during the brief period when considerations of self-interest- could not have been brought fully to bear by reasoned reflection, the utterance may be taken as particularly trustworthy * * What constitutes a spontaneous utterance such as will bring it within this exception to the hearsay rule must depend, necessarily, upon the facts peculiar to each case, and be determined by the exercise of sound judicial discretion, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baber v. United States · 214 N.J. Super. 278 - State v. DR

2. ““Even if the child had been mentally disturbed when she told her story, the present case would not have been within the established doctrine of spontaneous statements. This exception to the hearsay rule has commonly been applied only when there has been independent evidence of an exciting event; testimony other than the hearsay statement has proved that a collision occurred,' a shot was fired, or the like, and the hearsay has served only to identify the actors or to specify their conduct. If, for example, there is no evidence of any assault except A’s testimony that B cried ‘Smith shot at me’,' -we-do not convict Smith of assault, however excited B’s cry appears to have been. It is not apparent that this principle should be ignored when the assault charged is an indecent one.” (emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Mounts

3. ““As we held in the Snowden and Beausoliel cases [Snowden v. U. S., 2 App.D.C. 89 ; Beausoliel v. U. S., 71 App.D.C. 111 , 107 F.2d 292 ], if a child makes spontaneous statements they are admissible in evidence when a foundation is laid for them, and either the child’s condition or the child’s testimony may lay the foundation.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. United States