Edgington v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

376 federal appellate · 10 district · 89 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 527 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whatever may have been said in some of the earlier cases, to the effect that evidence of the good character of the defendant is not to be considered unless the other evidence leaves the mind in doubt, the decided weight of authority now is that good character, when considered in connection with the other evidence in the case, may generate a reasonable doubt. The circumstances may be such that an established reputation for good character, if it is relevant to the issue, would alone create a reasonable doubt, although, without it, the other evidence would be convincing.””

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Donnelly · Smith v. United States

2. ““Some testimony has been given you touching the good character of defendant. When a man is charged with crime, the courts of the United States permit this question of good character to be introduced to go to the jury. The theory,, as I view it, is a wise one. If a man, in the community where he lives, by his incoming and outgoing among his neighbors, has built up in the years of his life, be they comparatively few or many, a character among them for good morals, which includes the uprightness and excellency of our general citizenship, it is right that the jury should know that fact. It is of value to them in conflicting cases in determining points in the case; and yet, gentlemen, I have to say to you that evidence of good character is no defense against crime actually proven. If defendant in this case is proven guilty of crime charged; any good character borne by him in his community is no defense; it must not change your verdict; for the experience of mankind, of all of us, teaches us that men reputed to be of good moral character in a commu nity unfortunately sometimes we find they are sadly different from that which they are reputed to be, and that they are committers of crime; yet the good character' goes to the jury with special force wherever the commission of the crime is doubtful. If your mind hesitates on any point as to the guilt of this defendant, then you have the right and should consider the testimony given as to his good character, and it becomes, as I have sug”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rowe v. United States · 44 Pa. D. & C.3d 370 - Commonwealth v. Neely

3. ““That every person who knowingly or willfully (makes or aids, or assists in the making or) in any wise procures the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, voucher or paper, or writing purporting to be such, concerning any claim for pension or payment thereof, or pertaining to any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Pensions (or of the Secretary of the Interior), or who knowingly or willfully (makes or causes to be made, or aids or assists in the making, or) presents or causes to be presented at any pension agency any' power of attor -iiey, or other paper required as a voucher in drawing a pension, which paper bears a date subsequent to that upon which it was actually signed or acknowledged (executed) (by the pensioner, and every person before whom any declaration, affidavit, voucher, or other paper or writing to he used in aid of the prosecution of any claim for pension or bounty land or payment thereof purports to have been executed, who shall knowingly certify that the declarant, affiant, or witness named in such declaration, affidavit, voucher, or other paper or writing, personally appeared before him and was sworn thereto, or acknowledged the execution thereof, when, in fact, such declarant, affiant or witness did not personally appear before him or was not sworn thereto, or did not acknowledge the execution thereof), shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment f”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Keitel