Petersen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
268 F.2d 87 · 1959
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Carbo v. United States (1963), United States v. Somers (1974)
40 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Michelson v. United States · Edgington v. United States · Anderson v. McKay · Remington Rand, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Trop v. Dulles
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But I am unable to find any good reason for telling a jury that good character alone may be sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt when there is other evidence equally important and equally persuasive. To me, such an instruction in cases of this kind places an emphasis and an importance upon character testimony which was never intended, and which the whole context of the Edgington case denies.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule is well established that “a defendant may offer his good character to evidence the improbability of his doing the act charged.” As said in Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 [, 476, 69 S.Ct. 213 , 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)], “character is relevant in resolving probabilities of guilt.” In a case such as this where the defendant admits understatement of income and defends solely on the lack of wilful intent, the character of the defendant is an important element. In the exercise of a sound judicial discretion a court may limit the number of witnesses permitted to testify to a single fact and the extent to which cumulative testimony may be received. It may be that in some instances, particularly where a fact is not contested, a limitation to one witness is proper. However, to restrict a defendant to one character witness is a harsh limitation in a case such as this where the sole defense is lack of wilful intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whatever may have been said in some of the earlier cases, to the effect that evidence of the good character of the defendant is not to be considered unless the other evidence leaves the mind in doubt, the decided weight of authority now is that good character, when considered in connection with the other evidence in the case, may generate a reasonable doubt. The circumstances may be such that an established reputation for good character, if it is relevant to the issue, would alone create a reasonable doubt, although without it the other evidence would be convincing.”
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.