United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
501 F.2d 146 · 1974
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably United States v. Nobles (1975), United States v. Downing (1985)
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Malloy v. Hogan · Harris v. New York · Sherbert v. Verner · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nobles offered the testimony of Dr. Robert Buckhout as an expert witness to describe the problems of eyewitness identification in general and the specific difficulties with the identifications in this case. The court refused the proffered testimony, concluding that the testimony would invade the province of the jury, that the undue consumption of time would substantially outweigh its probative value, and that the offer of proof was inadequate. We in turn cannot conclude that the trial court was in error. United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant next contends that over his objection on the ground the testimony would invade the province of the jury, Government’s witness, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and photographic identification specialist, compared two photographs: a photograph taken by the bank’s surveillance camera at the time of the robbery and a police photograph of appellant taken ten days prior to trial. To assist in his identification, he enlarged the head area of the surveillance photograph to the same size as the enlarged head area in the police photograph. The witness then pointed out the similarity in the two photographs in the nose and mouth areas, chin line, hair lines, ear contours and inner folds of the ears, among other things. He then testified that based on all the ge:(jsral characteristics the individual in the surveillance photograph is the individual in the police photograph “or another individual having all of these characteristics as to nose, mouth, chin, and the ear characteristics . . . .” We see no error in the admission of this testimony. While the jury is the sole judge of the facts, expert testimony has long been admissible as an aid to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE COURT: The Court is going to rule as follows: first of all the government may not have the memorandum until the witness has taken the stand and has indicated the particular impeaching testimony which was the last part of Mr. Hoffman’s testimony relative to his inability to distinguish between people of the black race. And if he does make such a statement, if he and [the investigator] make such a statement then I believe the government is entitled to an examination of the memoran dum—not before that time—but after that time, after he has completed his entire testimony....”
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.