United States v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 8 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Assuming the district court’s denial of Cox’s motion to have been prejudicial, we conclude that it was correct. The accused who must risk prejudice to his case from misuse of prior convictions faces a lamentable dilemma. Numerous alternatives have been proposed as remedies to this difficult tactical and evidentiary knot. With few exceptions, however, the general practice remains to treat the accused like any other witness. [Citations.]” 428 F.2d 683, 689 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Escobedo · 34 Ill. App. 3d 193 - People v. Hill

2. “under conditions of good visibility at a reasonably short distance [45 to 60 feet] and for a period of several seconds.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. Hudson v. Brierton · Walton v. Lane

3. ““Cox, however, never indicated any desire or intention to retain possession of the hair after it had been scissored from his head. Clippings such as those preserved in the instant case are ordinarily abandoned after being cut. Cox in fact left his hair and has never claimed otherwise. The deputy sheriff was not obliged to inform him that, if abandoned, his hair would be taken and analyzed. Having voluntarily abandoned his property, in this case his hair, Cox may not object to its appropriation by the Government. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 ; United States v. Minker, 312 F.2d 632, 634-635 (3d Cir. 1962), certiorari denied, 372 U. S. 953 , 83 S.Ct. 952 , 9 L.Ed.2d 978 ; United States v. Cowan, 396 F.2d 83, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1968); Parman v. United States, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 188 , 399 F.2d 559, 564-565 (D.C. Cir. 1968), certiorari denied, 393 U.S. 858 , 89 S.Ct. 109 , 21 L.Ed.2d 126 . Defendant’s intent in discarding his severed hair is no less clear because it involved no affirmative act on his part. United States v. Cowan, 396 F.2d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1968); Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 701-706 (8th Cir. 1965), certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 946 , 86 S.Ct. 407 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 ; Feguer v. United States, 302 F.2d 214, 249 (8th Cir. 1962), certiorari denied, 371 U. S. 872 , 83 S.Ct. 123 , 9 L.Ed.2d 110 .” Id. at 687-88.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Venner v. State