Turner v. Fair’s Empirical Analysis
617 F.2d 7 · 1980
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably United States v. Noone (1990), Rashad v. Walsh (2002)
17 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
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 Picard v. Connor · Cardillo v. United States · Kelsaw v. Oregon · United States v. Cardillo · Fountain v. United States
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]ot every invocation of the fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination results in a denial of the sixth amendment right of confrontation and requires striking the witness’s testimony; a distinction is drawn between direct and collateral matters. While the line between these two categories may not always be clear, the essential inquiry must finally be whether defendant’s inability to make the inquiry created a substantial danger of prejudice by depriving him of the ability to test the truth of the witness’s direct testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the privilege has been invoked as to purely collateral matters, there is little danger of prejudice to the defendant and, therefore, the witness’s testimony may be used against him .... On the other hand, if the witness by invoking the privilege precludes inquiry into the details of his direct testimony, there may be a substantial danger of prejudice because the defense is deprived of the right to test the truth of his direct testimony and, therefore, that witness’s testimony should be stricken in whole or in part. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he determination whether a defendant has been denied the right to confront and cross-examine a witness requires an “analysis of the purpose of the inquiry and the role which the answer, if given, might have played in the defense.””
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.