United States v. Gutman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although insanity as such is no longer a ground for disqualifying a witness, a district judge has the power, and in an appropriate case the duty, to hold a hearing to determine whether a witness should not be allowed to testify because insanity has made him incapable of testifying in a competent fashion. ⅜ ⅜ [⅜ # There is also no question that the district judge could have conditioned Odopi’s testifying on his agreeing to take, a psychiatric examination the results of which would be available to Gut-man’s lawyer for use in impeaching Odom on the stand. The rule allowing the insane to testify assumes that jurors are capable of evaluating a witness’s testimony in light of the fact that he is insane, and it may seem to follow that the jury, to assist it in evaluating such testimony, should have the results of an up-to-date psychiatric examination of a prospective witness who has given definite indications of serious mental illness, as Odom had.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cole · United States v. Zizzo

2. “The courts that have addressed the question agree, however, that the power not to allow a witness to testify unless he submits to a psychiatric examination should be exercised sparingly. (Citations omitted). If the doors are opened to a battle of experts testifying as to a witnesses’ credibility, there would be no end to the collateral consequences. There would be just as much reason to want such testimony as to an accomplice witness, an informer, or a witness who had cut a deal with the government as there would be to a drug user. In this era of increasing use of experts in both civil and criminal trials, the sad truth is that an “expert” can be found to testify on behalf of almost any viewpoint or position. Wisely, we have historically left credibility determinations to the trier of fact, and we see no reason to depart from that procedure under the facts of this case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ramirez · 773 F. Supp. 545 - United States v. Bloome

3. “abnormal degree of internal inconsistency”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re AHB · McFowler v. Jaimet