United States v. Morlang’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.2d 183 · 1975
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 8 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Goodwin (1982), United States v. Mandel (1979)
93 federal appellate · 8 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Relationships
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Irvin v. Dowd · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Reynolds v. States · Singer v. United States
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is, of course, obvious from everyday experience that the latent memory of a witness may be revived by prior written statements which he or others may have made. Thus, most courts today hold that in examining a witness at trial, counsel may hand him a memorandum to inspect for the purpose of refreshing his memory, with the result that when he testifies, he does so on the basis of his own recollection, not the writing. Proper foundation for such procedure requires that the witness’ recollection be exhausted. A contrary holding would permit a party to substitute the prior statement of a witness for his actual testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of the Constitution’s emphasis on jury trial, we find it difficult to understand how the petitioner can submit the bald proposition that to compel a defendant in a criminal ease to undergo a jury trial against his will is contrary to his right to a fair trial or to due process. A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. We find no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is simply that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury — the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him.”
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.