Wallace v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.2d 656 · 1960
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Parodi (1983), United States v. Joseph A. Chase, United States of America v. Robert H. Parrish, United States of America v. Wyatt J. Roy, Jr. (1967)
34 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on Berger v. United States · Quercia v. United States · United States v. Falcone · Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout · Bell 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It cannot be too often repeated, or too strongly emphasized, that the function of a federal trial judge is not that of an umpire or of a moderator at a town meeting. He [she] sits to see that justice is done in the cases heard before him [her]; and it is his [her] duty to see that a case on trial is presented in such a way as to be understood by the jury, as well as by himself [herself]. He [she] should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts; and it is no ground of complaint that the facts so developed may hurt or help one side or the other. .... The judge is the only disinterested lawyer connected with the proceeding. He [she] has no interest except to see that justice is done, and he [she] has no more important duty than to see that the facts are properly developed and that their bearing upon the question at issue are clearly understood by the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“On at least six occasions during the trial and in closing argument, the United States Attorney misquoted the language [of a Government witness].We cannot agree with the Government that the prejudicial effect of such misquoting was removed by the United States Attorney and the trial judge telling the jurors that it was for them to recall the actual statement. Stewart v. United States, 1957, 101 U.S. App.D.C. 51 , 247 F.2d 42 , 47. These repeated and seemingly deliberate misquotes, * * * may well have become so firmly implanted on the jurors’ minds as to cloud the actual testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“generally casting the dark shadow of evasiveness around his testimony on this point and creating the impression that the [c]ourt may have adroitly and skillfully forced the truth from a fumbling and dodging defendant”
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.