United States v. Stamps’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 33 · 1970
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Chimel v. California · Preston v. United States · United States v. Jeffers · United States v. Freeman · Cervantes v. United States
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a defendant calls government agents to the stand in an effort to establish some part of his defense he should be given every reasonable leeway in bringing out whatever may be relevant to the issues before the jury. It is pointless to require a showing, such as the trial judge indicated might be necessary, that such witnesses are hostile. The agents were adverse parties within the meaning of Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., which permits such witnesses to be cross-examined, asking leading questions, and generally impeached. Although there is no companion provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, there is even more reason for permitting such a practice in criminal cases where every proper means of ascertaining the truth should be placed at the defendant’s disposal. We do not limit our repudiation of . the pernicious rule against impeach-iment of one’s witness to instances in ; which the witness is an “adverse party” or “hostile.” The search for truth is not to be confined by any such limitation, and, as Professor Morgan has aptly said: “The fact is that the general prohibition, if it ever had any basis in reason, has no place in any rational system of investigation in modern society and all attempts to modify or qualify it so as to reach sensible results serves only to demonstrate its irrationality and to increase the uncertainties of litigation.” I Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence, page 64 (1954 Ed.). See also the classic discus”
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.