United States v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 753 · 1972
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably United States v. Reilly (1994), United States v. Fawley (1998)
19 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Yates v. United States · Bollenbach v. United States · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I do not think it proper to indict and prosecute an individual for perjury when the questions forming the basis of the charge are so vaguely and inarticulately phrased By the interrogator as to require the jury to probe the inner workings of the accused's mind to seek to ascertain which of several plausible meanings he attributed to the ambiguous inquiries when he gave the allegedly perjurious responses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The seriousness of the crime of perjury and the fact that it turns finally on the subjective knowledge and purpose of the swearer require that the Government not be allowed to predicate its case upon the answer to a single question which in and of itself may be false, but which is not shown' to be false when read in conjunction with testimony immediately preceding and following the alleged perjured statement. The oftquoted [Fotie] rule is applicable here. ‘A charge of perjury may not be sustained by the device of lifting a statement of the accused out of its immediate context and thus giving it a meaning wholly different than that which its context clearly shows.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Perhaps the most persuasive indication of the indefensibility of the majority’s position is the simple fact that had Cook responded to the question in the affirmative, there could have been no doubt, in light of the uncontroverted evidence, that the payments had ceased, that such an answer would have been false. Cook was indeed “up the creek” without any semblance of a paddle when posed this question, for regardless of his response, he was subjecting himself to a perjury prosecution.”
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.