United States v. Cudlitz’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 992 · 1996
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Jeffrey Washington v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent, Wallkill Correctional Facility (2001), United States v. Fulmer (1997)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on United States v. Olano · Kotteakos v. United States · Michelson v. United States · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Yagow v. United 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, the jury was told that the lawyer's questions are not evidence.... But the sting survives such instructions, which is why lawyers ask impeaching questions that they know will produce denials.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is centrally concerned with character for veracity, a mode of accrediting or discrediting the witness that is based on the same 'propensity' reasoning of Rule 404 [which prohibits prior bad acts evidence] but is subject to quite different rules. Rule 608 permits accrediting or discrediting by opinion or reputation evidence as to character for veracity, Rule 608(a), and, on cross-examination only, by inquiry into specific instances of conduct 'if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we can uphold the conviction, in the teeth of an error preserved by a timely objection, only where we think it 'highly probable' that the error played no role in the conviction, that is to say, that the result would have been identical regardless of the error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.