United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.2d 185 · 1964
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1994
10 federal appellate · 2 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 Michelson v. United States · Ford Motor Co. v. United States · United States v. Tomaiolo · United States v. Pennix · United States v. Walker
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled in this circuit that a defendant who voluntarily offers himself as a witness and testifies in his own behalf subjects himself to legitimate and pertinent cross-examination to test his veracity and credibility. Thus, the prosecution may inquire of him, by way of impeachment, whether he has been convicted of a felony, infamous crime, petit larceny or a crime involving moral turpitude. If he 'denies prior convictions of specific offenses concerning which he is interrogated, evidence thereof is admissible as bearing upon his credibility as a witness and for no other purpose. Furthermore, if the defendant testifies as a witness in his own behalf, his general reputation, like that of any other witness, for truth and veracity in the community where he resides, among his friends, neighbors and acquaintances and the people with whom he transacts business, may be shown. These principles are so well recognized as to require little or no discussion. “Equally well established is the legal principle that in a criminal ease the defendant’s general character cannot be attacked by the Government unless evidence of his good character is first introduced by him. As stated in United States v. Walker, 313 F.2d 236 , 238 (6 Cir. 1963), “ * * * * Accordingly, if the defendant calls character witnesses who testify to his good character in general, the Government can meet this evidence by the introduction of witnesses who contradict such testimony, but, in the absence of such char”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was substantial error to permit the Government to attack defendant's character by introducing testimony concerning his reputation as a 'liquor law violator on a large scale.'”
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.