Schoppel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he trend in recent years has been to allow any person of competent understanding to testify and to let the jury take into account the character of the witness in determining his credibility and the weight to be accorded his testimony. The Supreme Court so held in regard to a convicted felon in Rosen v. United States, 1918, 245 U.S. 467 , 38 S.Ct. 148 , 62 L.Ed. 406 , and a similar liberal view of admissibility was announced in respect to the testimony of a wife called as a witness for her husband, abrogating the ancient rule of exclusion, Funk v. United States, 1933, 290 U.S. 371 , 54 S.Ct. 212 , 78 L.Ed. 369 . When Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 U.S.C.A., was later adopted pursuant to congressional authorization, it embodied the same doctrine. It provides in part: ... the admissibility of evidence and the competency and privileges of witnesses shall be governed, except when an act of Congress or these rules otherwise provide, by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. The Advisory Committee on Rules noted that this rule contemplates the development of a uniform body of rules of evidence for criminal cases in the Federal Courts, and that while based on the common law, it “does not fetter the applicable law of evidence to that originally existing at common law,” but that “the law may be modified and adjusted from time to time by judicial decisions.” F.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 191 W. Va. 142 - State ex rel. Wolfe v. King

2. ““Where the fact was in no way controverted at the trial, we think that the testimony of the witness Paul F. Pegelow was adequate to prove the court’s jurisdiction over the situs of the offense, if indeed the matter was not one for judicial notice. He testified that he has served as Superintendent of the Lorton Reformatory for thirty-four years and that it is a government reservation. We adopt the all sufficient answer returned by Mr. Justice Holmes when the identical point was raised in Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 252 , 31 S.Ct. 2 , 54 L.Ed. 1021 . . . , namely, that the United States is not called on to try title in a murder case.” Id., at 418.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Collins

3. ““Appellant is simply wrong in assuming that ‘the only possible avenue for admitting this evidence was Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.’ Brief of Appellant at 38. Even before adoption of the federal rules, this court recognized that ‘where a cross-examiner has endeavored to discredit a witness by prior inconsistent statements, it is sometimes permissible to offset the damage by showing prior consistent utterances.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moreland v. State