Rice v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 1100 · 1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2018
3 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Douglas v. Alabama · Reynolds v. States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; but if a witness is absent by his own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away. The Constitution does not guarantee an accused person against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts. It grants him the privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him; but if he voluntarily keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on his privilege. If, therefore, when absent by his own procurement, their evidence is supplied in some lawful way, he is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated. . . . The rule has its foundation in the maxim that no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Abraham“A witness is not available for full and effective cross-examination when he or she refuses to testify. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Nelson v. O’Neil, 402 U.S. 622 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 , 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971). This is equally true whether the refusal to testify is predicated on privilege or is punishable as contempt, so long as the refusal to testify is not procured by the defendant. Douglas v. Alabama, supra, 380 U.S. at 420 , 85 S.Ct. at 1077 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458 , 471, 20 S.Ct. 993 , 998, 44 L.Ed. 1150 (1900); United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637 , 650-52 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1008 , 95 S.Ct. 2629 , 45 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.