Bowden v. McKenna’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[I]t is universally recognized that evidence, to be relevant to an inquiry, need not conclusively prove the ultimate fact in issue, but only have 'any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co. · United States v. Russell

2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roshan v. Fard · Gonzales v. State

3. “As against plaintiff’s evidence, defendants testified to one of them ordering Bowden to get out of the car, to which he responded by driving against him, knocking him down, and then backing up and endeavoring to run over him, (“cut me in two”); that Bowden then tried to shoot him, and that they both shot Bowden. Again, there was no evidence to explain why Bowden, in turn, should have engaged in such hostile conduct. Defendants, however, sought to introduce such evidence, namely, identification of Bow-den as one of the robbers by the two storekeepers, but the court excluded it. This exclusion and its consequences produced this appeal. In the first place, this was not a collateral matter. Here were two experienced policemen, instructed, as plaintiff was careful to bring out, to make arrests and generally conduct themselves with the least amount of force, but jointly shooting to kill a man they wished to question allegedly simply because he refused to get out of his car. On its face it makes no sense. Defendants sought to make sense by the testimony identifying him as one of the robbers. Not merely would this have suggested a violent disposition, a matter not normally considered collateral in self-defense cases, United States v. Burks, 1972, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 284 , 286, 289, 470 F.2d 432 , 434, 437; see C. McCormick, Evidence, § 192, at 460-61 (2d ed.1972); more important, it would have shown that Bowden had a motive to resist the officers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roshan v. Fard