Awkard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.2d 641 · 1965
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably United States v. Lewis (1973), United States v. Bell (1974)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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
Relies on Jackson v. Denno · Michelson v. United States · Marshall v. United States · Luck v. United States · Kenneth Jones v. United States of America, Willis Campbell, Jr. 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjautionary instructions, copiously provided by the trial judge in this case, do not give the accused adequate protection. They cannot prevent the jury from considering prior actions in deciding whether appellant has committed the crime charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * The information elicited was highly prejudicial; the character witness’ testimony was weak to begin with since it went to an earlier [here subsequent] period and a different community [here Montana instead of Iowa]; * * * and could be impeached further without reference to the prior arrests. Indeed, the prosecuting attorney could have had the character testimony stricken since it did not relate to defendant’s reputation in the community in which she lived or worked at the time of the alleged crime. Lomax v. United States, supra, 37 App.D.C. 414 at 417-418. Under these circumstances, the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting cross-examination on defendant’s prior arrests and conviction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The use of cross-examination of a character witness to show [a] defendant’s prior arrests has been much criticized but widely practiced. We do not reverse this long practice at this time. We do, however, urge the trial judges to confine the use of such cross-examination to those situations in which it is highly relevant to establish a character witness’ reliability; and even in those situations, to exercise their discretion and exclude the cross-examination where prejudice outweighs probative value.”
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.