Carter v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

176 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The chief value of an expert’s testimony in this field . . . rests upon the material from which his opinion is fashioned and the reasoning by which he progresses from his material to his conclusion; ... it does not lie in his mere expression of conclusion.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. United States · Rollerson v. United States

2. “Lay witnesses may testify upon observed symptoms of mental disease, because mental illness is characterized by departures from normal conduct. Normal conduct and abnormal conduct are matters of common knowledge, and so lay persons may conclude from observation that certain observed conduct is abnormal. Such witnesses may testify only upon the basis of facts known to them. They may testify as to their own observations and may then express an opinion based upon those observations. Of course the testimony of a lay witness with training in this or related fields may have more value than the testimony of a witness with no such training. Also obvious upon a moment’s reflection is the fact that, while a lay witness’s observation of abnormal acts by an accused may be of great value as evidence, a statement that the witness never observed an abnormal act on the part of the accused is of value if, but only if, the-witness had prolonged and intimate-contact with the accused. [Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. at. 237, 252 F.2d at 618 , emphasis supplied.] 14”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Naples v. United States · United States of America, v. John Williams,

3. ““ * * * To claim exemption from responsibility for a criminal act an accused must assert two conditions: (1) that he suffered from a mental disease or defect and (2) that his alleged criminal act was the product or result of that disease or defect. When this defense is raised, the response of the Government may be one or the other (or both alternatively) of two propositions: (1) that the accused had no mental disease or defect or (2) that even if the accused had a mental disease or defect the alleged criminal offense was not the product of the infirmity.” [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hopkins v. United States · United States v. Amburgey