Ross v. Heyne’s Empirical Analysis
638 F.2d 979 · 1980
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Bowie (1990), Government of Virgin Islands v. Zepp (1984)
37 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Giglio v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n actual conflict would arise where defense counsel is unable to cross-examine a prosecution witness effectively because the attorney also represented the witness. The problem that arises when one attorney represents both the defendant and the prosecution witness is that the attorney may have privileged information obtained from the witness that is relevant to cross-examination, but which he refuses to use for fear of breaching his ethical obligation to maintain the confidences of his client. ‘The more difficult problem which may arise is the danger that counsel may overcompensate and fail to cross-examine fully for fear of misusing his confidential information.’ A conflict of interest would also exist where one attorney represents co-defendants, and one defendant agrees to provide evidence against the other in return for an advantageous plea bargain.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]henever two or more defendants have been jointly charged ... and are represented by ... retained or appointed counsel who are associated in the practice of law, the court shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burger v. Zant“[t]he Supreme Court's proposal of this rule indicates its recognition that the potential constitutional problems attendant to multiple representation are present when different attorneys from the same legal partnership represent co-defendants with conflicting interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burger v. Zant
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.