Naples v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 508 · 1964
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Austin v. United States (1967), Fuller v. United States (1967)
67 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 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. § 1111
Relies on Escobedo v. Illinois · Green v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Screws v. United States · Opper 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ufficient extrinsic evidence should be required to preserve the integrity of the right against self-incrimination, the presumption that every accused is innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt and the accusatorial nature of our system. [ Naples v. United States, supra at 129, 344 F.2d at 514 .]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We think the court erred in ref using to instruct the jury that it could not find appellant guilty of both first degree and second degree murder. Since the jury found appellant guilty on both counts, the error must be deemed prejudicial. Sections 22-2401-02, District of Columbia Code (1961), define first degree murder.16 Section 22-2403 provides: “Whoever with malice aforethought, except as provided in sections 22-2401, 22-2402, kills another, is guilty of murder in the second degree.” 17 (Emphasis supplied.) This makes it clear that a single offense cannot be both first and second degree murder. In Goodall v. United States, we said an instruction on both first and second degree murder. “is necessary only when from the evidence as a whole the jury might reasonably find the defendant guilty of either first or second degree murder, and therefore must decide which degree had been committed.” [ 686 U.S.App.D.C. 148 , 151, 180 F.2d 397 , 400, 17 A.L.R.2d 1070 (1950), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 987 , 70 S.Ct. 1009 , 94 L.Ed. 1389 (1950), emphasis supplied.] “At common law there were no degrees of murder. All homicide with malice aforethought, whether express or implied, was murder. And all murder was punished by death.” Clark & Marshall, CRIMES § 10.09 at 608 (6th ed.1958). By statute murder was defined in various degrees in order to treat criminal behavior on a more individual basis. “First degree murder” now stands as the criminal act deserving the most severe sanction. To permit con”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““On the former appeal, we held the substance of this testimony was not excluded by Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). * * * Without considering the merits of this holding, we apply it as the law of the case to sustain admission of this testimony.” 120 U.S.App.D.C. 123 , 125, 344 F.2d 508 , 510 (1964).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.