Walker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.2d 683 · 1974
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Robinson (1977), State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion) (2017)
14 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Moore v. Illinois · 47 Cal. 2d 566 - People v. Riser · Banning v. United States · United States v. Cunningham
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the trial, the Government elicited testimony regarding this pistol from the branch manager and the teller who were involved in the robbery. Both specifically stated that the pistol shown to them in court — the one seized from the defendant’s person — was definitely not the weapon used in the robbery Despite this testimony and defense counsel’s repeated objections, motions to exclude, and motions for mistrial, the trial court nevertheless admitted the pistol into evidence following the testimony of the police officer who seized the weapon from the defendant. [On cross-examination, the police officer himself admitted that he found no weapon identifiable as having been used in the robbery . Walker v. United States, supra, 1. c. 684 n. 1.] We hold that this was prejudicial error. This is not at all the classic case of admitting into evidence a “similar” weapon which was found in the possession of a defendant but which could not be positively identified as that used in a crime. Such evidence has been regularly admitted as relevant. [Emphasis added.] E. g., Banning v. United States, 130 F.2d 330 , 335 (6th Cir. 1942); United States v. Cunningham, 423 F.2d 1269 , 1276 (4th Cir. 1970). Here there was positive evidence that the pistol admitted was not similar to the one used in the crime. Thus the traditional justification for the admission of such a weapon is cut away and the evidence must be seen as irrelevant since it was not probative of the proposition that the accused committ”
3 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.