Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 230 · 1966
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably State v. Edwards (1976), 112 Ohio App. 3d 521 - State v. Hopfer (1996)
35 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Brown v. Allen · Watts v. Indiana · Fikes v. State of Alabama · Frazier v. United States · Scott Paper Co. v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Disruptive consequences to the trial of criminal cases are suggested by permitting defense counsel to come forth after conviction and successfully contend that, notwithstanding the absence of actual bias, and notwithstanding his own failure sufficiently to pursue voir dire inquiry to expose possible predilections on the part of a prospective juror, that nevertheless probable prejudice must be imputed to the juror as a matter of law and a new trial thereafter granted. ‘A disqualification which by reasonable diligence could have been discovered before verdict, may not afterwards be made the subject of an attack upon a verdict.’ Spivey v. United States, 5 Cir., 109 F. 2d 181, 186 , Cert. denied 310 U. S. 631 , 60 S. Ct. 1079 , 84 L. Ed. 1401 .””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he age, mentality and prior criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity and frequency of interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * in the absence of any non-disclosure, intentional or inadvertent, from which it can be conclusively presumed that there was so obvious a disqualification and inherent prejudice as a matter of law, Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 513 , 69 S.Ct. 201 , 93 L.Ed. 187 , reh. denied 336 U.S. 907 , 69 S.Ct. 488 , 93 L.Ed. 1072 , we hold that the action of the court below in denying the motion for new trial was not a clear abuse of discretion.” (Italics supplied.)”
2 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.