United States v. Phillip L. Rogers, United States of America v. Charles Spotts’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 821 · 1973
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably 123 Ill. 2d 113 - People v. Harris (1988), United States v. Franks (1975)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Katz v. United States · United States v. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Gilbert v. California · Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]ot every invocation of the fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination results in a denial of the sixth amendment right of confrontation and requires striking the witness’s testimony; a distinction is drawn between direct and collateral matters. While the line between these two categories may not always be clear, the essential inquiry must finally be whether defendant’s inability to make the inquiry created a substantial danger of prejudice by depriving him of the ability to test the truth of the witness’s direct testimony.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prejudice requiring severance is not shown if evidence on the severed counts would be admissible in the trial of the remaining counts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“handwriting exemplars taken alone are outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his handwriting.”
2 later decisions 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.