United States v. Nathan Earl Cook and Larry James Phelps. Appeal of Larry James Phelps’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.2d 1000 · 1976
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Long (1978), United States v. Provenzano (1980)
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 · Stirone v. United States · Michelson v. United States · United States v. Miller · Loper v. Beto
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... we must balance the actual need for that evidence in view of the contested issues and the other evidence available to the prosecution, and the strength of the evidence in proving the issue, against the danger that the jury will be inflamed by the evidence to decide that because the accused was the perpetrator of the other crimes, he probably committed the crime for which he is on trial as well.... The treasured principles underlying the rule against admitting evidence of other crimes should be relaxed only when such evidence is genuinely needed and would be genuinely relevant, (footnote omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence of other offenses may be received if relevant for any purpose other than to show a mere propensity or disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“long standing tradition that protects a criminal defendant from 'guilt by reputation' and from 'unnecessary prejudice.'”
2 later decisions 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.