United States v. Ellenbogen’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.2d 982 · 1966
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham (1977), United States v. Franks (1975)
81 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 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 Ungar v. Sarafite · Palmer v. Hoffman · Douglas v. Alabama · Avery v. State of Alabama · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant asserts that it was error for the trial judge to excuse, with appellant’s consent, a juror who became ill during the course of the trial, and to replace the juror with an alternate. The substitution of an alternate for a juror for reasonable cause is within the prerogative of the trial court and does not require the consent of any party. A party claiming to be injured by such action is entitled to a new trial only on a clear showing of prejudice to him. In the present case the appellant has failed to show any injury or prejudice whatever. This court will not presume prejudice without some plain showing to that effect....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of a defendant in a criminal case to act as his own lawyer is unqualified if invoked prior to the start of the trial. * * * [citing cases] Once the trial has begun with the defendant represented by counsel, however, his right thereafter to discharge his lawyer and to represent himself is sharply curtailed. There must be a showing that the prejudice to the legitimate interests of the defendant overbalances the potential dis- ■ ruption of proceedings already in progress, with considerable weight being given to the trial judge’s assessment of this balance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“prejudice to the legitimate interests of the defendant must be balanced against the potential disruption of the proceedings in progress.”
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.