United States v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 403 · 1977
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lutwak v. United States · United States v. Cravero · Williamson Et Al. v. United States · Maffei v. United States · United States v. Williamson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, Apollo addresses the prejudice resulting from hearsay. While Moore’s counsel made over 50 objections to testimony, claiming it to be hearsay, our own review of the record reveals that most of these did not in fact involve hearsay .... These extrajudicial acts and statements were not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted; rather, they constituted direct evidence of Moore’s activities and involvement in specific transactions, or his knowledge of facts otherwise established.....Thus, Apollo is inapplicable here because the objections concerned direct evidence which was properly admitted by the trial court. . . . More to the point, however, is the fact that there has been and can be no showing by Moore of any prejudice resulting from the failure in this case to give a cautionary instruction to the jury. Moore’s counsel conceded at oral argument that the conspiracy was adequately established by independent evidence. We have concluded on our own review of the evidence that Moore was definitely linked to the conspiracy by nonhearsay evidence. Thus, the jury was entitled to impute the words and actions of coconspirators to each other without limitation. What Moore requests is that we reverse his conviction because the trial court failed to give an instruction which at best was superfluous. It would seem to be harmless error, if error at all, for a court to fail to limit a jury’s consideration of hearsay testimony when the evidence aliunde strongly indicates both”
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.