Beto v. Stacks’s Empirical Analysis
408 F.2d 313 · 1969
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 1992 · most notably United States v. Pricepaul (1976), William M. Gilday, Jr. v. Palmer C. Scafati (1970)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio · Stovall v. Denno · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In response to appellant’s first argument, we do not find Burgett v. Texas distinguishable from the present case on the ground that appellee herein was denied no specific “federal right.” Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. at 115 , 88 S.Ct. 258 , 19 L.Ed.2d 319 . Burgett involved the use for purposes of enhancement of a conviction that was presumptively void under the Sixth Amendment. The present case involves the use of a conviction for purposes of enhancement that is definitely void under the Fourth Amendment. Whatever the differences between these two constitutional rights, and whatever the seriousness of their respective impingements, they are both rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 . As such they are both “specific federal rights” as that term is used in Burgett . . . . While it is true that the use of evidence resulting from an unlawful search and seizure is less likely to affect the integrity of the fact-finding process than the denial of counsel at trial, . . . the creation of such a constitutional hierarchy is not part of the rationale of Burgett.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“while it is true that the use of evidence resulting from an unlawful search and seizure is less likely to affect the integrity of the fact-finding process than the denial of counsel at trial . . . the creation of such a constitutional hierarchy is not part of the rationale of Burgett.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e must be cautious in the use of prior convictions to guard against the danger that the jury may subconsciously or overtly metamorphize evidence of prior crimes into proof of present guilt.”
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.