Bayless v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.2d 67 · 1967
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Tillman v. United States (1969), United States v. Dougherty (1972)
89 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 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. § 7
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Escobedo v. Illinois · McNabb v. United States · Mallory 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” “(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rule 23 also requires that an agreement to be tried by a jury of fewer than twelve jurors be in writing. In Rogers v. United States, 319 F.2d 5 (CA 7, 1963), cert. den. 375 U.S. 989 , 84 S.Ct. 524 , 11 L.Ed.2d 475 , and in Horne v. United States, 264 F.2d 40 (C.A. 5, 1959), cert. den. 360 U.S. 934 , 79 S.Ct. 1460 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1549 , it has been held that an oral agreement in open court is sufficient to validate a trial with such a jury. In the instant case the appellant, in order to obtain a substantial advantage for himself, knowingly and intelligently agreed that one of the several issues in the case should be decided by the court. We think he thereby validly waived whatever right he might, in the absence of that agreement, have had. Bayless v. United States, supra at 75.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This court has held that identity of a name is sufficient to establish the identity of the person in the absence of contradictory evidence,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.