United States v. Lipscomb’s Empirical Analysis
702 F.2d 1049 · 1983
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Luce v. United States (1984), United States v. Browne (1987)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 14 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. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · Krulewitch v. United States · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Bowsher v. Merck & Co.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Clrimes of stealth (eg., smuggling, burglary), while not quite crimes of 'dishonesty or false statement, do reflect lack of credibility and should be admitted unless significantly prejudicial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, when a defendant seeks an advance ruling on admission of a prior conviction, it is reasonable to presume that the ruling will be an important factor in his decision whether to testify. See Kiendra, 663 F. 2d at 352 . Second, advance rul ings on admissibility are preferable because “[c]ounsel need to know what the ruling will be on this important matter so that they can make appropriate tactical decisions.” 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence P.609[05], at 609-82 (1981), quoted in Jackson, 627 F. 2d at 1209. To limit review of advance rulings would undercut the value of such rulings. See Kiendra, 663 F. 2d at 352-53 . Third, and most important, the [contrary] rule will probably serve merely as a trap for unwary defendants or defense counsel. (Footnote omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, (1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and (2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Theus v. State
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.