Luck v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.2d 763 · 1965
Citation profile
275 federal appellate · 3 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 436 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Jenkins v. Anderson (1980), McGautha v. California (1971)
275 federal appellate · 3 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 38 states
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 Jackson v. Denno · Michelson v. United States · Grunewald v. United States · Walder v. United States · Brown 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 436 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the prejudicial effect of impeachment far outweighs the probative relevance of the prior conviction to the issue of credibility.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) No person is incompetent to testify, in either civil or criminal proceedings, by reason of his having been convicted of a criminal offense. (b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a criminal offense shall be admitted if offered, either upon the cross-examination of the witness or by evidence aliunde, but only if the criminal offense (A) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, or (B) involved dis honesty or false statement (regardless of punishment). . . . (2) (A) Evidence of a conviction of a witness is inadmissible under this section if— (i) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure granted or issued on the basis of innocence, or (ii) the conviction has been the subject of a certificate of rehabilitation or its equivalent and such witness has not been convicted of a subsequent criminal offense. (B) In addition, no evidence of any conviction of a witness is admissable [sic] under this section if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the later of (i) the date of the release of the witness from confinement imposed for his most recent conviction of any criminal offense, or (ii) the expiration of the period of his parole, probation, or sentence granted or imposed with respect to his most recent conviction of any criminal offense. . . . (Empha”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence of the conviction of a witness for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement shall be inadmissible for the purpose of impairing his credibility. * * * ””
3 later decisions 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.