Mims v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

209 federal appellate · 3 district · 29 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 273 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"may be rebutted by showing the incorrectness or inadequacy of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based, 'the reasoning by which he progresses from his material to his conclusion,' . . . inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony as to material matters, [and] material variations between the experts themselves. . . . In some cases, the cross examination of the expert may be such as to justify the trier of fact in not being convinced by him. One or more of these factors may, depending on the particular facts of each case, make a jury issue as to the credibility and weight to be given to the expert testimony."”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. United States · United States v. Pitts

2. “... [O]ne of the most generally accepted rules of all jurisprudence, state and federal, civil and criminal, is that the questions of credibility and weight of expert opinion testimony are for the trier of fact....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bostick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · United States v. Harper

3. ““There is no good reason to make an exception for expert opinion evidence on insanity. It is just as subject to error as expert testimony on other matters. Psychiatry itself has progressed rapidly; but it is still a comparatively young profession dealing, not with an exact science, but with a controversial and rapidly developing one. In addition, the psychiatrist and the jury in a criminal case where insanity is an issue are concerned with entirely different' questions. The psychiatrist deals with the question of the defendant’s behavior problems from a clinical standpoint in an atmosphere of a physician-patient relationship. On the other hand, a jury is charged with the duty of determining from the evidence admitted in an adversary proceeding the broader question of the criminal responsibility of the accused. That issue includes the questions not only of whether the defendant had a mental defect or disease at the time of the alleged offense, but also of whether any such defect or disease, if found to exist, met the legal test of insanity, as an accused may have a mental disorder or deficiency and in some cases still be mentally competent to be held legally responsible for his crime.” Mims v. United States, 375 F.2d at 141 -142 and cases cited in notes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Levy