Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 F.2d 288 - United States v. Long

United States v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

449 F.2d 288 · 1971

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 7 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Ash (1973), 9 Cal. 3d 871 - People v. Dumas (1973)

57 federal appellate · 7 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 18 states

63019711980199020002010decided

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 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas

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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In a criminal case, a defendant cannot be compelled to take the stand and testify. Whether he testifies or does not testify is a matter of his own choosing. However, when a defendant elects to take the stand and testify then he is a competent witness and you have no right to disregard his testimony merely because he is accused of a crime. When he does testify, he at once becomes the same as any other witness and his credibility is to be tested by and subjected to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness. You have no right to disregard his testimony simply because he is a defendant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The contention that the items seized were not particularly described in the search warrant is without merit. The only items seized which were admitted into evidence were the charred remains of a check taken from the Brinks guard, the ash from money straps and the coin bag seals, also taken during the robbery. The description of the items sought in the search was sufficient to cover these items which the evidence shows were actually taken in the robbery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In Long, the Court said (449 F.2d at 296): “From an examination of the entire record, we are, however, convinced that any error of the trial court here in failing to make Mr. Neal available was harmless error, especially in view of the extensive cross-examination of Neal by the attorneys for the defense, both in the presence and outside the presence of the jury.””
    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.