Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 680 · 1966
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Hamblin (1988), Tillman v. United States (1969)
83 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))
Relies on Berger v. United States · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley · Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson · Homan 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The prime consideration in determining whether or not to grant a severance is the possibility of prejudice to the defendant in conducting his defense. Weighing the danger of * * * undue cumulative inference is a matter for the trial judge within his sound discretion. His denial of severance is not grounds for reversal unless clear prejudice and abuse of discretion is shown. There has been no such showing here. It is not enough simply to show that such joinder makes it more difficult to defend. * * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The law is clear that evidence of the commission of other crimes is incompe tent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the crime charged. This rule is based on the common-sense proposition that such evidence draws the attention of the jury away from the real issues and injects an additional and confusing burden upon the defense. But, there are broad exceptions to this rule; such evidence is admissible to show motive, identity, a common scheme or plan, guilty knowledge or intent, etc. [Citations omitted.] Generally speaking, such evidence will be found extremely prejudicial and require reversal unless the reference to prior offenses is clear and cogent and an explicit instruction as to its limited competence is given. . . [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bragg
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.