Peckham v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The contention now is that prejudice resulted in permitting defendant to be cross-examined as to why he would make no statement to the officer. If it is thought that he was insulated from cross-examination in this regard because of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination the point is disposed of by Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S. Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 . It was there held that when a-defendant takes the stand in his own defense he may be cross-examined about his failure to testify on his previous trial for the same offense. This court has similarly ruled in Viereck v. United States, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 279 , 139 F.2d 847 , certiorari denied, 321 U.S. 794 , 64 S. Ct. 787 , 88 L. Ed. 1083 . Implicit in these decisions is the right to cross-examine a defendant about his failure to seek to exonerate himself when questioned on a previous occasion, for if such cross-examination does not invade the protection of the Fifth Amendment in the circumstances presented in the Raffel and Yiereck cases it does not invade its protection here. And we know of no other basis for excluding the cross-examination, assuming, as we do, that the “No statement” evidence was properly admitted; for even if the accused could validly refuse to make a statement nevertheless when he took the stand he could be asked why he refused.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Wash. 2d 994 - State v. Robideau

2. “* * * The court was mistaken in basing his rejections upon the theory that during the cross-examination of an adverse witness proffers are never in order. When the examination is direct a proffer, though usual, is not invariably required to obtain review of exclusion of a question, see Rule 43(c), Fed. R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.; but neither is a proffer invariably inappropriate when the examination is cross and objection to a question is sustained. There is a discretion, which was not abused, and we may not assume it will be abused in the event of a retrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James H. Molloy, Etc. v. Bemis Bro. Bag Company

3. “another word, I will have the Marshal stick a gag in your mouth.”

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