Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 U.S. 620 - Hammer v. United States

Hammer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

271 U.S. 620 · 1926

Citation profile

424
cited by 424 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

288 federal appellate · 16 district · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 424 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Dunn v. United States (1932), Standefer v. United States (1980)

288 federal appellate · 16 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 18 states

130019261930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedHammer v. United States (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Quock Ting v. United States · Williams v. United States · United States v. Tynen · United States v. Yuginovich

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

  1. ““ * * * To return a verdict of guilty on a charge of perjury a jury must, of course, be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the accused testified falsely but that he did not, at the time, believe his testimony to be true. The first inquiry in a determination of whether or not the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find an accused guilty of perjury relates to the application ■of the 'two witness rule.’ This rule is misnamed. It does not require the testimony of two witnesses. Properly stated it is that ‘the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish, for purposes of conviction of perjury, the falsity of sworn testimony.’ (citations omitted) * * * We think the evidence effered on the first count satisfies the rule. “Fulfillment of the two witness rule is necessary for conviction of perjury. It is not, however, sufficient for conviction. An additional requirement is that the jury could (reasonably believe that there was no reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt, (citations omitted.) This requirement, of course, relates to both elements of perjury: the falsity of the testimony and the lack of a belief in its truth. Generally, a belief as to the falsity of testimony may be inferred by the jury from proof of the falsity itself. * * * ””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whoever— "(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or "(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; "is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That case shows that the rule, which forbids conviction on the unsupported testimony of one witness as to falsity of the matter alleged as perjury, does not relate to the kind or amount of other evidence required to establish that fact.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.