Moody v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.2d 175 · 1967
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably United States v. Dellinger (1972), Gordon v. United States (1971)
76 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Quercia v. United States · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. · Riggs 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This privilege of the judge to comment on the facts has its inherent limitations. His discretion is not arbitrary and uncontrolled, but judicial, to be exercised in conformity with the standards governing the judicial office. In commenting upon testimony he may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. His privilege of comment in order to give appropriate .assistance to the jury is too important to be left without safeguards against abuses. The influence of the trial judge on the jury “is necessarily and properly of great weight” and “his lightest word or intimation is received with deference, and may prove controlling.” This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence “should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be onesided;” that “deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.” [citations omitted] He may not charge the jury “upon a supposed or conjectural state of facts, of which no evidence has been offered.” [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Appellant] seems to contend that her explanation and protestations of innocence coupled with her husband's testimony at trial that she did not have the requisite knowledge had the effect of overriding the effects of possession. However, inconsistent statements made by her and her husband cast doubt upon their explanations and their credibility; and it is particularly within the province of the jury to believe or disbelieve her claims of innocence. There was substantial evidence from which the jury could and obviously did infer that she transported the vehicle with knowledge of its stolen character.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it”
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.