United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.2d 708 · 1981
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Paladino (2005), United States v. Boylan (1990)
25 federal appellate · 16 state decisions — followed in 13 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Williams v. United States · Del Toro v. United States · United States v. Grunberger
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(forcing the defendant to take the stand in order to introduce the omitted exculpatory portions of (a) confession (which) is a denial of his right against self-incrimination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 106 [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] is a procedural device governing the timing of completion evidence; the Rule is ‘primarily designed to affect the order of proof. It means that the adverse party need not wait until cross-examination or rebuttal. As such, the Rule reduces the risk that a writing or recording will be taken out of context and that an initial misleading impression will take hold in the mind of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Taylor
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.