United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 421 · 1971
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably United States v. Bennett (1976), United States v. Byers (1984)
38 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 659
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Lutwak v. United States · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Michelson 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . There appears to be a trend in legal thinking away from the traditional right of unlimited cross examination of defendants as to prior convictions when they testify in their own defense. “This court, however, has continuously followed the time honored rule that when .a defendant in a criminal case takes the stand in his own defense, his credibility may be impeached and his testimony attacked in the same manner as any other witness, including reference to prior convictions. United States v. Perea, 413 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 945 , 90 S.Ct. 960 , 25 L.Ed.2d 125 (1970); Butler v. United States, 408 F.2d 1103 (10th Cir. 1969); Martin v. United States, 404 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1968); Burrows v. United States, 371 F.2d 434 (10th Cir. 1967). To minimize undue prejudice, we have recognized that the trial court has discretion in limiting cross examination of an accused on the subject of prior convictions. United States v. Bartello, 432 F.2d 1030 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Perea, supra; Butler v. United States, supra; Burroughs v. United States, supra; Maguire v. United States, 358 F.2d 442 (10th Cir. 1966). We find no abuse of discretion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the evidence is so one-sided that it is inconceivable that [correction of the mention of the guilty plea] would have had any influence on the judgment of the jury or affected the result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(p)erhaps the single most significant factor in weighing whether an error was harmful is the strength of the case against the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Vap
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.