United States v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 1049 · 1980
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Bowie (1990), United States v. Campbell (1982)
35 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Harris v. McRae · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago · Brown v. Texas · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ven in the absence of a prior attack on credibility, “the elicitation of the fact of the agreement and the witnesses] understanding of it, as a motivation for the witness to testify for the Government, should be permitted on direct examination in order to anticipate cross-examination by the defendant which might give the jury the unjustified impression that the Government was concealing this relevant fact.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is also the rule in this circuit that although credibility generally may not be supported until it has first been attacked, an exception exists which allows the Government to bring out on direct examination the circumstances surrounding a witness’ motivation for cooperating with the Government or other matters damaging to the witness’ credibility. Admission of this evidence is permitted in order to avoid an inference by the jury that the Government is attempting to keep from the jury the witness’ possible bias.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“district court has broad discretion to exclude evidence that is irrelevant or cumulative”
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.