Bradley v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.2d 1113 · 1969
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 1 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably State v. Lott (1990), State v. Franklin (1991)
82 federal appellate · 1 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prejudice may develop when an accused wishes to testify on one but not the other of two joined offenses which are clearly distinct in time, place and evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holmes v. Gray · State v. Howell“(1) he may become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses; (2) the jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from which is found his guilt of the other crime or crimes charged; or (3) the jury may cumulate the evidence of .the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if considered separately, it would not so find. A less tangible, but perhaps equally persuasive, element of prejudice may reside in a latent feeling of hostility engendered by the charging of several crimes as distinct from only one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The rule admitting proof disclosing another crime to show the accused's identity as the perpetrator of the offense on trial does not demand that the two episodes possess factual sameness in every detail. The inquiry, rather, is whether the two have enough in common to justify a cautious judgment that the probative force of the common details received in evidence is appreciable, and so much so as in the scheme of jurisprudential values to outweigh the potential harm to the accused." (Footnotes omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Abel · State v. Kay
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.