Barnes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 federal appellate · 3 district · 44 state decisions

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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is well-settled law that the criminal record of a defendant may not be introduced into evidence at trial unless the defendant takes the stand or otherwise places his character in issue.”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Fosher · United States v. Torres-Flores

2. ““ . . . [filie testimony that the i>o-lice had on hand photographs of the accused might conceivably have led a juror, at least a sophisticated juror, to hypothesize [or in more ordinary English, to “guess”] that the accused had a police record.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hines · 395 So. 2d 485 - Gross v. State

3. ““. . . Pictures of criminals showing a front and profile view, with a number displayed on the breast, are common and familiar. If the evidence had been offered for the good-faith purpose of showing that the witness could identify a photograph of the defendant, these pictures might have been cut apart and that portion where the number is displayed cut away. But it is. obvious that thus presented they would have no more relevancy or probative force than a kodak picture taken in the court room or in the defendant’s home. It may well be doubted whether the jurors remained in ignorance of the fact that the photographs and card [on which the photograph were pasted] had to do with some criminal record of the defendant. It was not proper to prove that the defendant had a criminal record, and what may not be done directly may not be done by indirection or subterfuge. . . .” “. . . Since proof of another crime improperly admitted is always treated as prejudicial error, and, since it cannot be said that this exhibit and the manner in which it was presented was not sufficient to cause a juror of average intelligence to at least strongly suspect that the defendant had a criminal history, we cannot say that the admission of the exhibit was not prejudicial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blue v. State