Pope v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
372 F.2d 710 · 1967
Citation profile
173 federal appellate · 5 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 250 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Furman v. Georgia (1972), Estelle v. Smith (1981)
173 federal appellate · 5 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 32 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 24 U.S.C. § 211 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1865 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Escobedo v. Illinois · Schmerber v. State of California
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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the charge appropriately embraces and requires positive conclusions by the jury as to the defendant’s cognition, his volition, and his capacity to control his behavior, and if these three elements of knowledge, will and choice are emphasized in the charge as essential and critical constituents of legal sanity, we shall usually regard the charge as legally sufficient.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [or wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“* * * we state that we expect a trial judge, in a case involving criminal responsibility, to be free in his admission of all possibly relevant evidence, to be imaginative in his charge, and to give appropriate and particular stress to the requirements of cognition, volition and capacity to control, rather than to be content with the bare bones of a traditional charge, even though it has been specifically approved by appellate opinion in the past. 372 F.2d at 736 .”
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.