United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 1284 · 1973
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2005 · most notably United States v. Grayson (1978), State v. Rogers (1986)
25 federal appellate · 22 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffin v. California · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · Costello 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Sentencing judges should not indiscriminately treat as a perjurer every convicted defendant who has testified in his own defense. Witnesses induced by sordid motives or fear have been known to fabricate accusations with such guile that even conscientious triers of fact have been misled. Moreover, some essential elements of proof of criminal conduct, such as knowledge, intent, malice, and premeditation are sometimes so subjective that testimony about them cannot be readily categorized as true or false. Judges must constantly bear in mind that neither they nor jurors are infallible. A verdict of guilty means only that guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant has lied in maintaining his innocence.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““I am very strongly of the opinion that a trial judge may not properly impose a harsher sentence upon a defendant because he thinks the defendant lied on the witness stand. Such a practice will , inevitably chill and hamper, if not ultimately destroy, the' right to testify in one’s own defense. It seems to me unconscionable that a defendant must run the risk of conviction of the offense charged and at the same time run the gauntlet of disbelief.” 484 F. 2d 1288 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Were it only a case of your being convicted of this offense, I would impose some sort of a sentence but not a very long one. But we have more than that here. You took the stand in your own defense, as you have every right to do, hut you testified falsely under oath in an attempt to exculpate yourself from this crime. The Court should take that into account in deciding what is the proper sentence in a case of this sort.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.