Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 F.3d 767 - United States v. Becht

United States v. Becht’s Empirical Analysis

267 F.3d 767 · 2001

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Dodds (2003), 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 - O'GRADY v. Superior Court (2006)

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

260200120102020decided

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

Relies on Old Chief v. United States · United States v. Shoffner · United States v. Erdman · United States v. Beckman · United States v. Hay

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

  1. “On 'objection, the court would decide whether a particular item of evidence raised a danger of unfair prejudice. If it did, the judge would go on to evaluate the degrees of probative value and unfair prejudice not .only for the item in question but for any actually available substitutes as well.... [T]he judge would have to make these calculations with an- appreciation of the offering party’s need for evidentiary richness and narrative integrity in presenting a case, and the mere fact that two pieces of evidence might go to the same point would not, of course, necessarily mean that only one of them might come in.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If an evidentiary alternative has equal or greater probative value and poses a lower risk of unfair prejudice, the trial court should 'discount' the probative value of the disputed evidence and exclude it if the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its discounted probative value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury ....”
    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.