United States v. Rudolph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 6 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[w]e are of the opinion that the cautionary instruction did not remove the prejudice. It must be remembered that after the saber thrust, the withdrawal of the saber rUll leaves the wound.” 403 F.2d at 807”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manning v. Jarnigan · United States v. Gray

2. ““The Government contends that the error was cured by the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the question. While ordinarily the trial court has discretion to determine whether a cautionary instruction is sufficient to avoid granting a mistrial, we think that the question asked in this case was so clearly improper and prejudicial to the defendants that the harm could not be erased by any instruction which the court might give.” 403 F.2d at 806 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manning v. Jarnigan

3. ““It is clear that ordinarily on cross-examination a defendant may not be questioned as to whether he participated in unrelated specific acts of criminal conduct not resulting in a conviction, as such evidence has no relevancy to the issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged, and such evidence is likely to be extremely prejudicial.” United States v. Rudolph, 403 F.2d 805 , 806 (6th Cir. 1968)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manning v. Jarnigan