Baker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
227 F.2d 376 · 1955
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 1976 · most notably United States v. Miller (1974), Ehrlich v. United States (1956)
30 federal appellate ·
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 26 U.S.C. § 5601
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Weiss v. United States · Vick v. United States · Lloyd v. United States · Maytag Co. v. Apex Electrical Manufacturing Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there are present all of the other requisites of one of the exceptions for the general rule forbidding evidence of prior convictions, then I do not think that the evidence becomes inadmissible simply because the charge on trial does not require proof of a “specific intent.” The usual purpose of evidence of prior convictions, when admissible at all, is to show that the acts proved to have been committed by the defendant were done with a criminal intent. . . . McClain v. U. S. [cite omitted] and the present opinion seem to me to reverse the order, so as to have us reason from the abstract legal definition of the crime backward, rather than from the acts of the defendant forward to the intent with which they were done, and such reversal I think, tends not only to confuse rather than to help, but erroneously places crimes not requiring a “specific intent” outside the application of the exception to the rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think that there could have been no real question of Trice’s criminal motive if, in fact, he changed the numbers on the stolen automobiles. Proof of the commission of the act carried with it the evident implication of a criminal intent. In such instances, evidence of the perpetration of other like offenses is not needed to- establish criminal motive or intent and is not admissible for such purpose.”
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.