Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 F.2d 542 - Bailey v. United States

Bailey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

328 F.2d 542 · 1964

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
5
states following
August 1991
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 1991 · most notably Brown v. United States (1964), Jones v. United States (1964)

44 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

4801964197019801990decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Weeks v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Von Moltke v. Gillies

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

  1. “[The defendant] “must be free to deny all the elements of the case against him without thereby giving leave to the Government to introduce by way of rebuttal evidence illegally secured by it, and therefore not available for its case in chief.” * * On the other hand a defendant cannot “turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. * * * [T]here is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““* * * Being relevant, they could be excluded only as a punitive measure against unrelated wrongdoing by the police. Our duty in shaping rules of evidence relates to the propriety of admitting evidence. This power is not to be used as an indirect mode of disciplining misconduct.””
    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.