Grant v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2000
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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Drew v. United States · Harris v. Oklahoma · Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the jury may cumulate evidence of the separate crimes ... (2) the jury may improperly infer a criminal disposition and take the inference as evidence of guilt, or where (3) the defendant may become embarrassed or confounded in presenting different defenses to different charges. However, where ... evidence of each joined offense would be admissible in a separate trial for the other, the first two dangers are largely absent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“And finally, ladies and gentlemen, concluding part one of my instructions, flight by a person after a crime has been committed, or after he or she has been accused of a crime, may be motivated by a variety of factors which are fully consistent with innocence. It does not create a presumption of guilt, nor does a person’s flight necessarily reflect feelings of guilt. Furthermore, since innocent persons sometimes have feelings of guilt, such feelings do not necessarily actually — not necessarily reflect actual guilt. While you may consider flight as one circumstance tending to show feelings of guilt and you may also consider feelings of guilt as evidence tending to show actual guilt, you are not required to do so. Under no circumstances may you presume a defendant's guilt from his or her flight, or failure to appear in court as required. You should consider and weigh evidence of flight by a defendant in connection with all the other evidence in the case, and give it such weight as, in your judgment, it is fairly entitled to receive. Also, in that connection — I'm referring only to testimony with respect to the defendant Russell — failure to appear in court: As I’ve told you, you are not to consider the absence of Mr. Thacker from this trial in any way whatsoever.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“reflecting consciousness of guilt about the other charges.”
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.