Dirring v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
328 F.2d 512 · 1964
Citation profile
145 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably United States v. Nelson (1969), United States v. Drougas (1984)
145 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Holland v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Shannon · Achilli v. United States · Abel 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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'whether the total evidence, including reasonable inferences, when put together is sufficient to warrant a jury to conclude that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nor do we agree that it was error to allow the police photograph in evidence because it revealed that the defendant had been in prior difficulties. While this subject is frequently thought of in terms of the well-established exceptions, such as those relating to identity, design, or intent, see, e. g., Jarabo v. United States, 1 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 509, 513-514 , the principle seems better described (although again it is not free from exception) from the obverse standpoint. ‘Evidence of other offenses may be received if relevant for any purpose other than to show a mere propensity or disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.’ United States v. Stirone, 3 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 571, 576 , rev’d on other gr’ds, 361 U.S. 212 , 80 S. Ct. 270 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 ; see McCormick, Evidence, § 157 (1954); cf. Uniform Rules of Evidence, 55, 47 (1954). As we said in Green v. United States, 1 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 541, 543 , ‘[Testimony otherwise relevant is not rendered inadmissible merely because its tendency to prove the commission of some other crime.’ The photograph in question had independent relevancy, not possible to separate. We think it was within the court’s discretion to conclude that this outweighed the photograph’s prejudicial effect. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hildebrandt v. State“every reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt”
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.