Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 570 F.2d 21 - Richard Dunn v. Everett I. Perrin, Jr., Laurence Black v. Edward Cox

Richard Dunn v. Everett I. Perrin, Jr., Laurence Black v. Edward Cox’s Empirical Analysis

570 F.2d 21 · 1978

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 13 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), United States v. Miller (1978)

64 federal appellate · 13 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 15 states

71019781980199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Holland v. United States · Harrington v. California · Cupp v. Naughten

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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In United States v. Flannery, 451 F.2d 880 , 883 (1st Cir. 1971), we condemned virtually that exact wording. Although the existence of other reversible error in Flannery made it unnecessary for us to resolve the constitutional implications of such a charge, we do so now. That definition of reasonable doubt was the exact inverse of what it should have been. See United States v. Magnano, 543 F.2d 431 , 436 (2d Cir. 1976); Bernstein v. United States, 234 F.2d 475 , 486 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1956). Instead of requiring the government to prove guilt, it called upon petitioners to establish doubt in the jurors’ minds. That is an inescapable violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1969). (emphasis ours).”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Reasonable doubt] does not mean a trivial or a frivolous doubt nor one which can be readily or easily explained away, but rather such a strong and abiding conviction as still remains after careful consideration of all the facts and arguments against it and would cause a fair-minded person to refrain from acting in regard to some transaction of importance and seriousness equal to this case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(d) iscussion of the concept is perhaps the most important aspect of the closing instruction to the jury in a criminal trial.”
    3 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.