Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 369 F.2d 185 - Gregory v. United States

Gregory v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

369 F.2d 185 · 1966

Citation profile

379
cited by 379 later decisions
35
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

186 federal appellate · 24 district · 131 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 379 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Telfaire (1972), Baker v. United States (1968)

186 federal appellate · 24 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 35 states

18901966197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun v. United States · Opper v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Drew 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 379 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Witnesses, particularly eye witnesses, to a crime are the property of neither the prosecution nor the defense. Both sides have an equal right, and should have an equal opportunity, to interview them. Here the defendant was denied that opportunity which, not only the statute, but elemental fairness and due process required that he have.””
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The instructions to the jury in this case were deficient. In spite of the fact that the only real issue presented by the evidence was the identification of the defendant, no charge on identification was given. * * * “Without doubt, conviction of the wrong man is the greatest single injustice that can arise out of our system of criminal law. * * * Thus the obligation to guard against this danger is obvious. An identification instruction alone will not, of course, obviate the danger. But at least it is a step in the right direction. That step should have been taken in this case. See Jones v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 83 , 361 F.2d 537 (1966); Salley v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 359 , 353 F.2d 897 (1965).””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The witnesses should be clearly directed, when [Rule 615] is invoked . . . that they are not to discuss the case . . . with anyone other than counsel for either side.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.