Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 F.2d 853 - United States v. Hall

United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

178 F.2d 853 · 1950

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 1981 · most notably United States v. Crosby (1961), Koolish v. United States (1965)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Krulewitch v. United States · Fiswick v. United States · United States v. Toner · Gordon v. United States · Leroy v. Government of Canal Zone

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

  1. “From the common sense point of view a plea of guilty by an alleged fellow conspirator is highly relevant upon the question of the guilt of another alleged conspirator. If A’s admission that he con spired with B is believed, it is pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that B must have conspired with A. This is one of the cases, therefore, where evidence logically probative is to be excluded because of some countervailing policy. There are many such instances in the law. See 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1171 et seq (3d ed. 1940). The foundation of the countervailing policy is the right of every defendant to stand or fall with the proof of the charge made against him, not against somebody else. Acquittal of an alleged fellow conspirator is not evidence for a man being tried for conspiracy. So, likewise, conviction of an alleged fellow conspirator after a trial is not admissible as against one now being charged. The defendant had a right to have his guilt or innocence determined by the evidence presented against him, not by what has happened with regard to a criminal prosecution against someone else. * * * lid.] [Footnotes omitted]”
    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.