Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.2d 803 · 1965
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Gregory v. United States (1966), United States v. Caldwell (1974)
94 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 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. § 3500
Relies on Griffin v. California · Jencks v. United States · Campbell v. United States · United States v. Atlas Life Insurance · Milton 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, in order to avoid the undue prejudice which may arise from the jury’s knowledge that Jencks Act statements were available to the accused, motions for their production should be made outside the hearing of the jury. The actual handing over of the statements should take place with the jury absent, or at least unaware. In this case, for example, the statements apparently were turned over to defense counsel in the presence of the jury and then a recess was called to permit counsel to study the statements. No reason appears why the recess could not have been called first and the statements transferred after the jury had left. Thus the risk of strengthening the Government’s case in moving for production of Jencks Act statements is avoided. In this way full recognition is accorded the rights of the defendant under the Jencks decision as reaffirmed by Congress in the Jencks Act.” (Footnotes omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a well known rule of evidence, applicable in criminal and civil cases alike, that prior consistent statements may not be used to support one’s own unimpeached witness. ... No one would seriously argue that the Government could formally introduce Jencks Act statements in support of its own unimpeached witness. Yet the comments of the prosecuting attorney in this case accomplish virtually the same result in the minds of the jurors. Based as they are on inadmissible evidence, such comments are not permissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no difference, ladies and gentlemen, in these reports made at the time of the crime. They corroborate the testimony of the police officer from the witness stand.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.