Ali v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Kulmac (1994), State v. Merriam (2003)
42 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Roberts v. Louisiana · Drew v. United States · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A pattern or systematic course of conduct is insufficient to establish a plan____The distinguishing characteristic of the common scheme or plan exception to inadmissibility is the existence of a true plan in the defendant’s mind which includes the charged and uncharged crimes as stages in the plan’s execution: the series of crimes must be mutually dependent.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“was not an element of the offenses charged and therefore the only probative value of the extrinsic evidence on the contested issue of the actus reus was propensity). Second, the proponent may fail to identify the independent theory of logical relevance and simply assert that the introduction of the other crimes evidence is probative of intent or identity, although those are elements of almost every crime. Third, the proponent may give the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a person is tried only for those crimes with which he has been charged; the penalties of criminal law are appropriately imposed only for the unlawful activity charged, not for bad character or predisposition; [and] admissible evidence at trial is generally limited to proof of [those] events which form the bases of the charges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Casias
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.