United States v. Masino’s Empirical Analysis
275 F.2d 129 · 1960
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably United States v. Cardillo (1963), United States v. Leonard (1974)
84 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 United States v. Becker · United States v. Tomaiolo · Cratty v. United States · Fletcher 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t was relevant for the defense to develop any facts bearing upon [the witness’] possible motives to falsify his testimony. All the facts regarding the indictment against him and the disposition of the other two counts were pertinent so that the jury could pass judgment on [the witness’] motives and their effect on the truthfulness of his testimony. . Whether or not the government had brought out on [the witness’] direct examination his plea to one count of the indictment, the indictment and its disposition was a matter so intimately related to [the witness’] possible motives to falsify and his relationship to the government which had called him as its witness that the trial court should have allowed full exploration of these matters on cross-examination.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When a witness in a criminal case is being questioned as to his possible motives for testifying falsely wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examination. * * * # # * * * * Indeed, where the principal witnesses appearing in behalf of the prosecution * * * have engaged in illegal practices and are accomplices to the crime charged, it is essential to a fair trial that the court allow the defendant to cross-examine such witnesses as widely as the rules of evidence permit. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When a witness is cross-examined for the purpose of destroying his credibility by proof of specific acts of misconduct not the subject of a conviction, the examiner must be content with the answer. The examiner may not, over objection, produce independent proof to show the falsity of such answer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.