United States v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.2d 244 · 1976
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Landrum (1990), United States v. Silverstein (1984)
115 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 26 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi · Yates v. United States · Smith v. Crouse · United States v. Mitchell
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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On the other hand, there is no question but that Congress meant to preclude reception of exculpatory hearsay statements against penal interests unless accompanied by circumstances solidly indicating trustworthiness. This requirement goes beyond minimal corroboration.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is enough if the proffered [statement] taken as a whole, either by what it says or by what it omits to say, affords some indication that the fact was different from the testimony of the witness whom it is sought to contradict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although the remarks did not amount to a clear confession to a crime ... we do not understand the hearsay exception to be Iim-ited to direct confession. A reasonable person would have realized that remarks of the sort attributed to Tilley [attributing involvement in the crime to one party and not another and thereby implying knowledge and involvement] strongly implied his personal participation in the ... crimes and hence would tend to subject him to criminal liability. Though by no means conclusive, the statement would be important evidence against Tilley were he himself on trial for the ... crimes.”
4 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.