United States v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 1175 · 1979
Citation profile
128 federal appellate · 6 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Luce v. United States (1984), United States v. Bagley (1985)
128 federal appellate · 6 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 19 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. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 524
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Johnson v. Zerbst · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In future cases, to preserve the issue for review, a defendant must at least, by a statement of his attorney: (1) establish on the record that he will in fact take the stand and testify if his challenged prior convictions are excluded; and (2) sufficiently outline the nature of his testimony so that the trial court, and the reviewing court, can do the necessary balancing contemplated in Rule 609.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Trial by ambush may produce good anecdotes for lawyers to exchange at bar conventions, but tends to be counter-productive in terms of judicial economy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McInnis v. State · Tony Abatti and Sheila Gruis, Formerly Known as Sheila Abatti, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Tony Abatti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ben Abatti and Margaret L. Abatti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Tony Abatti and Ninfa Abatti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ben Abatti and Margaret L. Abatti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue“At the outset of a trial, a defendant in good faith may intend to testify, but it may be quite reasonable for him to change his mind after considering the course taken by the evidence.... Thus, a defendant cannot be bound by any pretrial statement of election; in fact, it would appear to be unconstitutional to do so. See Brooks v. Tennessee, supra. There is absolutely nothing to guarantee the sincerity of such pretrial assurances, and even when statements of election are given in good faith, they may be based on fictional assumptions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.