Esters v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.2d 393 · 1958
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1989 · most notably Williams v. United States (1964), United States v. Drews (1989)
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 5008 · 26 U.S.C. § 5686
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Caminetti v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Holmgren v. United States · De Moss v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“absolute and mandatory duty is imposed upon the court to advise the jury by instruction that they should consider the testimony of an uncorroborated accomplice with caution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e do not understand that an absolute and mandatory duty is imposed upon the court to advise the jury by instruction that they should consider the testimony of an uncorroborated accomplice with caution. See Cami-netti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 , at page 495, 37 S.Ct. 192 , at page 198, 61 L.Ed. 442 , where the Court, in passing on a similar contention stated: ‘In Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 , [ 30 S.Ct. 588 , 54 L.Ed. 861 ] this court refused to reverse a judgment for failure to give an instruction of this general character, while saying that it was the better practice for courts to caution juries against too much reliance upon the testimony of accomplices and to require corroborating testimony before giving credence to such evidence. While this is so, there is no absolute rule of law preventing convictions on the testimony of accomplices if juries believe them.’ ””
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.