Evenson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.2d 94 · 1963
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 1985 · most notably Osborne v. United States (1965), United States v. Brickey (1970)
39 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Homan v. United States · The Kansas City Star Company v. United States of America, Emil A. Sees v. United States · Dolan v. United States · Davis 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The strength of the case made out by the Government is an important factor entitled to consideration in appraising the probable effect of the asserted error. (Citing cases.) “The Supreme Court in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 764-765, 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 1247-1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 , in stating the test for judging prejudicial error, among other things, stated: “ ‘If, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand * * *. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.’ “When consideration is given to the strong case made out by the Government, the rather brief, unemphasized reference to appellant’s admission of his past record, the prompt and decisive action of the trial court in striking the evidence, and instructing the jury to disregard it, the trial court’s appraisal to the effect upon the jury as reflected by his denial of the mistrial motion, and the record as a whole, we feel that we can say with reasonable assurance that the apparently inadvertent reference to appellant’s past record did not have any substantial effect upon the jury’s verdict.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant because it incidentally tends to establish another offense.”
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.