United States v. Falco’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 659 · 1984
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Peters (1986), United States v. Jackson (1989)
29 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 659
Relies on Santoni v. United States · Romano v. United States · Lombard v. Marcera · United States v. Beechum · Trammel 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question of relevancy here does not turn on the “similarity” of prior events in the way it might if testimony of prior or subsequent acts, rather than certifications of convictions for the same or related statutory offenses, were involved. Similarity of the underlying facts of the crimes is not the only basis on which the prior convictions could be considered relevant. Rather, extrinsic evidence in the form of convictions may be relevant on the issue of knowledge if, apart from facts demonstrating the similarity of the physical elements of the acts that gave rise to the inference of knowledge in the prior or subsequent convictions, the extrinsic offenses represented by the convictions are “of such a nature that [their] commission involved the same knowledge required for the offense charged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Calapp v. State“Defendant was free to attempt to undercut the probative value of the prior convictions, and hence their relevance, by distinguishing the facts underlying the previous convictions in response to the government’s motion to admit. By failing to proffer such evidence, however, defendant allowed the determination of the relevance of the prior convictions to turn solely on whether the fact that defendant had previously been convicted of the same or similar statutory offense requiring knowledge of stolen goods was minimally probative on the issue of defendant’s knowledge in this ease.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Calapp 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.