United States v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.3d 372 · 2012
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Old Chief v. United States · Rosales-Lopez v. United States · Mu'Min v. Virginia · United States v. Martinez-Salazar · United States v. Lopez-Medina
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.
“Even though the two sets of videos were probative, ..., the law of diminishing marginal returns still operates. The probative value of each clip was reduced by the existence of the clips before it. Once one video excerpt from each of the two videos was shown, the fact being proven — i.e., that the person distributing, receiving, and possessing that pornography would know that it contained images of real minors engaging in sexually explicit activity — may well have been established. As a result, after one excerpt from each video was displayed, tire probative value of the remaining excerpts became diminished because knowledge of distribution, receipt, and possession had already been established in some degree by the prior video excerpts. Thus, any of the three excerpts from the first video would have diminished probative value if one or two of the other video excerpts from the first video had already been shown. _ Likewise, any of the four excerpts from the second video would have diminished probative value if one or two of the other video excerpts from the second video had already been shown. The question in the end, of course, is whether the probative value of the clips shown was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. As Rule 403 clarifies, a party is not protected from all prejudice— only unfair prejudice. See Fed.R.Evid. 403; see United States v. Bergrin, 682 F.3d 261, 279 (3d Cir.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““we do not hold that the admission here of video excerpts or other images was per se improper. Indeed courts are in near-uniform agreement that the admission of child pornography images or videos is appropriate, even where the defendant has stipulated, or offered to stipulate, that those images or videos contained child pornography.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“their violent and sadistic character likely created 'disgust and antagonism' toward [the defendant,] which risked 'overwhelming prejudice' toward him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.