Armstead v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.2d 806 · 1965
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
December 1970
most recently cited
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · In re Oliver · Offutt v. United States · Thompson v. City of Louisville · Johnson v. State of Virginia
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to us that by putting the defendant in a different category from other witnesses, and forbidding the prosecutor to address him as Mr. Armstead, the District Judge encroached on the jury’s function in a way which cannot be reconciled with the fundamental principle that defendants are presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if he had already been convicted, forbidding the prosecutor to address him as Mister would have been inappropriate. In their dealings with criminals, trial judges represent society. If society’s representatives needlessly degrade or humiliate a criminal they tend to make him more hostile to society, thereby reducing the chance of rehabilitation and increasing the chance of recidivism.” Id. at 23-24, 347 F.2d at 807-808 . And see Hamilton v. Alabama, 376 U.S. 650 , 84 S.Ct. 982 , 11 L.Ed.2d 979 (1964), rev’g Ex parte Hamilton, 275 Ala. 574 , 156 So.2d 926 (1963).”
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.