United States v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis
543 F.2d 1333 · 1974
Citation profile
113 federal appellate · 15 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), Lashawn A. v. Barry (1996)
113 federal appellate · 15 district · 30 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Berger v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Competence to stand trial requires 'sufficient present ability to consult with [one's] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and ... a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [oneself].’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not impair any need of the government, avoids the possibility of adverse collateral consequences to defendant, and furthers the general interest of the administration of justice . . . .”
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.