Marvel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Weiler v. United States (1945), Hammer v. United States (1926)
21 federal appellate · 14 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
Relies on United States v. Wood · People v. . Doody · Allen v. United States · State v. Cerfoglio · Clayton 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This reasoning appears to be vulnerable from several angles. It is based upon the assumption that all oaths are of equal weight. It also assumes that the oath of the defendant given in the former proceeding which is alleged to be false is the defendant’s oath in the perjury case on trial. This at least appears doubtful as it seems to make of the defendant a witness in the perjury case without his taking the witness stand and to clothe him with a presumption of truthfulness with no opportunity on the part of the prosecution to attack his credibility.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The rule itself when tested by Twentieth Century principles of criminal law and evidence is far from satisfactory, but the reasons underlying the rule are even more unsatisfactory than the rule itself. Perjury (with the exception of treason) is the sole survivor of the common law trials where the quantitative theory of evidence still prevails. ... It seems unnecessary for us to trace f,he rule of evidence in perjury cases to its origin in order to show its incongruity to modem conditions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Almost every case upholding the rule has given as its reason for so holding that otherwise there would ‘only be oath against oath’; that the oath of the defendant alleged to be perjured is measured against that of the prosecuting witness; that the scale of evidence is thus poised; and the equilibrium ought to be destroyed by material and independent circumstances before the defendant should be convicted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. May v. United States
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.