United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * whenever specific intent is an element in a crime, other transactions of the same kind (emphasis supplied) are relevant to show that the required intent was present upon the occasion in question.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Herman v. United States · United States v. Guterma

2. ““Admittedly the common-law principle that ‘a wife cannot be produced either for or against her husband, “quia sunt duae animae in. carne una,” ’ Co.Litt., f. 6b, 1628, is gone; indeed, there is none now so poor as to do it reverence. But I think we tend to overlook the fact that our duty to interpret ‘the principles of the common law’ in the light of ‘reason and experience,’ Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 26, compels us to discover anew a rational rule, and that a rule looking at least halfway toward the past is itself a new embodiment of the law without, however, the gain of being a real adjustment to modern life. In this instance, therefore, I prefer the forthright approach of a great American judge, McDermott, J., speaking for a unanimous court in Yoder v. United States, 10 Cir., 80 F.2d 665 , and placing his decision by preference on this very point. (Citations) “For present purposes, however, the issue may be narrowed, as it is in the last paragraph of the opinion. For we really have to do with the exception, recognized even at common law, of a wife’s testimony as to her husband’s crimes against herself. Since it is said quite properly that this exception ‘probably extends’ to the privilege against the admission of confidential communications, 8 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2338, 3d Ed. 1940, I assume no special note need be taken of the defendant’s letter of March, 1947, beyond the wife’s testimony generally — even if the lack of exception to this bit of evidence i”

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

3. “We are by no means prepared to hold that, whenever any one fraudulently obtains the property of another, the proceeds are not also ‘taken feloniously by fraud,’ into whatever form he may convert them. ****** [I]t cannot be seriously argued that, if the accused defrauded his victim of bills of a large denomination and changed them into smaller bills, or vice versa, he would escape; and we recognize no distinction between such a case and the exchange of money from ordinary bank cheques into travelers cheques.”

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