United States v. Walden’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.2d 372 · 1974
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 7 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably United States v. Johnson (2005), State v. Nelson (1979)
48 federal appellate · 7 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 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 10 U.S.C. § 331 · 18 U.S.C. § 1385 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mapp v. Ohio · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Should there be evidence of widespread or repeated violations ... or ineffectiveness of enforcement by the military, we will consider ourselves free to consider whether adoption of an exclusionary rule is required as a future deterrent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““But, putting aside the question of the effectiveness of an exclusionary rule as a deterrent to violations of the Fourth Amendment, we do not find present in this case at this time the same considerations which required .an exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment cases or in other instances where an exclusionary rule has been fashioned and applied. First, the' proscription in the Instruction against the use of Marines in ordinary civilian criminal law enforcement was until today far less clear and far less widely known than the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches or the rules of court requiring an accused to be produced before a magistrate within a designated period after apprehension. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 , 63 S. Ct. 608 , 87 L. Ed. 819 (1943); Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 , 77 S. Ct. 1356 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 1479 (1957). Secondly, the Instruction expresses a policy that is for the benefit of the people as a whole, but not one that may fairly be characterized as expressly designed to protect the personal rights of defendants. Cf. United States v. Heffner, supra. Thirdly, the facts that the Instruction provides no mechanism for its own enforcement — and especially no criminal sanction for its violation — and that its legal effect was far from obvious, means that admission of the evidence of guilt does not require the court to condone ‘dirty business.’ See McNabb v. United States, supra, 318 U. S. at 345-346 , 63 S. Ct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Danko
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.