United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
427 F.2d 644 · 1970
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Brown (1978), United States v. Roenigk (1987)
25 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Harrington v. California · Corallo v. United States · Vernaci v. Louisiana
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ourts are aware of the prejudicial nature of all evidence of prior convictions, and where the prosecution goes beyond the essential facts of the convictions a reversal may be required, although counsel does not object.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“How far may the cross-examiner go in his inquiries about convictions? He may ask about the name of the crime committed, i. e. murder or embezzlement, and the punishment awarded. It will certainly add to the pungency of the impeachment where the crime was an aggravated one if he may ask about the circumstances, for example, whether the murder victim was a baby, the niece of the witness. And it has been suggested by a few courts that since proof by record is allowable, and the record would show some of these circumstances, the cross-examination should at least be permitted to touch all the facts that the record would. On the whole, however, the more reasonable practice, minimizing prejudice and distraction from the issues, is the generally prevailing one that beyond the name of the crime, the time and place of conviction, and the punishment; further details such as the name of the victim and the aggravating circumstances may not be inquired into.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jackson
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.