United States v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 705 · 1994
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion) (2016), United States v. Smith (2002)
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Mitan 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is of peripheral concern to the Sixth Amendment how much opportunity defense counsel gets to hammer that point home to the jury.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of a witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen reviewing the adequacy of cross-examination, the question is whether the jury had sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of the witness's motives and bias.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Douglas v. Owens · Douglas v. Owens
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.