United States v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 1317 · 1993
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Mayans (1994), United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez (1995)
27 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · Santoni v. United States · United States v. Beechum · United States v. Bailleaux · United States v. Ayers
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Extrinsic act evidence is not looked upon with favor.” We have stated that “[o]ur reluctance to sanction the use of evidence of other crimes stems from the underlying premise of our criminal system, that the defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.” Thus, “guilt or innocence of the accused must be established by evidence relevant to the particular offense being tried, not by showing that the defendant has engaged in other acts of wrongdoing.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“if admitted to prove intent, the other charged acts must be similar to the offense charged.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding the need to allow proper evidence of an accused's intent at the time of the charged offense, the use of prior conduct evidence for this purpose introduces the substantial risk of convietion based predominantly on bad character. Applying a broad construction to the intent exception of Rule 404(b), the admissibility or prior conduct evidence could improperly create the 'forbidden inference'.... This would cause the intent exception of Rule 404(b) to overwhelm the rule's primary objective of prohibiting evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts 'to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carson v. State
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.