Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 413 SO2D 482 - Barber v. State

Barber v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2000

19 state decisions

110198219902000decided

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 Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. · United States v. Duncan · United States v. Georgalis

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “for purposes of impeachment, there is no significant difference in probative value between a jury's finding of guilt and the entry of a judgment thereon.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “One may reasonably suggest that an anomaly will occur if the court ultimately chooses to withhold adjudication and place appellant on probation for the crime which the jury had previously found him guilty. Should this happen, appellant cannot thereafter be impeached by evidence concerning that crime. United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir.1980). However, the result under those circumstances would be no different than if a witness's judgment of guilt was ultimately reversed on appeal. Until such time as the reversal occurs, evidence of his judgment of guilt may be admitted for impeachment, and the fact that an appeal is pending may also be shown. Likewise, if a witness has been impeached by evidence that he has previously suffered an adverse verdict of guilt, evidence will also be admissible to show that no adjudication has yet been made. See United States v. Smith [ 623 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1950)].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, ... (Emphasis added).”
    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.