Bowman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
350 F.2d 913 · 1965
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. Weston (1971), Verdugo v. United States (1968)
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Rogers v. United States · United States v. White · V Subversive Activities Control Board
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" * * * It has long been settled that the privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the witness. (Hale v. Henkel, 1906, 201 U.S. 43 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 ; McAlister v. Henkel, 1906, 201 U.S. 90 , 26 S.Ct. 385 , 50 L.Ed. 671 ; United States v. Murdock, supra [ 284 U.S. 141 , 52 S.Ct. 63 , 76 L.Ed. 210 ]; United States v. White, 1944, 322 U.S. 694 , 64 S.Ct. 1248 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 ; Rogers v. United States, 1951, 340 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 438 , 95 L.Ed. 344 ; Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 1961, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 .) It is equally well settled that the witness can waive the privilege. Thus if Davie (witness) and Reves (witness) had each failed to assert the privilege, this would be nothing about which Bowman (defendant) would be entitled to complain. “It makes no difference, we think, that the two witnesses did attempt to assert the privilege and that the court erroneously overruled their claim of privilege. Where the witness is not the party, the party may not claim the privilege nor take advantage of an error of the court in overruling it. On this point the authorities are practically unanimous. (4 Jones on Evidence, 5th Ed., 1958, § 864, p. 1625; McCormick on Evidence, 1954, § 73, p. 153, § 133, p. 281; 8 Wigmore on Evidence, McNaughton Rev., 1961, § 2196, pp. 111-12, § 2270, at pp. 414-16; 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12 Ed., 1955, § 729, pp. 36-37; Morgan v. Halberstadt, 2 Cir., 1894, 60 F. ”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The cases upon which Bowman relies are not in point. In Fletcher v. United States, 1964, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137 , 332 F.2d 724 , a conviction, was reversed .because the prosecutor put a witness on the stand, knowing that the witness would claim;his privilege against self-incrimination, and proceeded to ask a series of questions which the witness declined to answer. The ground for reversal was that the refusals to answer were prejudicial to the defendant. They constituted almost the entire examination of the witness and were calculated to permit the jury to draw adverse inferences from the witness’s refusal. We have no such situation in this case. * * * In our case the witnesses testified fully and were cross-examined at length. As the court pointed out to them, they had a means whereby to protect the privilege if they desired to do so, but they did not choose to use it. Moreover, since they gave the testimony under compulsion, they may well be protected against its use in other proceedings. None of this, however, is any of Bowman’s business.” 350 F.2d at 916 .”
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.