United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.2d 844 · 1965
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Benton v. Maryland (1969), Price v. Georgia (1970)
72 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Mapp v. Ohio · Townsend v. Sain
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is entirely possible that without the inclusion of the first degree murder charge, the jury, reflecting a not unfamiliar desire to compromise might have returned a guilty verdict on the first degree manslaughter charge on the same evidence. There is, of course, no basis for predicting with any confidence, that this would have been the outcome of the third trial if Hetenyi had not been reprosecuted for first degree murder; but neither is there any basis for predicting, with any confidence, that this would not have been the outcome. To make this latter prediction on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence would be to ignore reality and, in effect, to have judges make the choice entrusted to the jury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he question is not whether the accused was actually prejudiced, but whether there is Reasonable possibility that he was prejudiced,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is difficult to understand how the fundamental unfairness inherent in allowing a prosecutor to ‘do better a second time’ (Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Brock v. North Carolina, supra, 344 U.S. [424] at 429, 73 S.Ct. [349], at 351, 97 L.Ed. 456 ) is mitigated by conditioning this second chance on a successful appeal by the accused.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.