United States v. Downing’s Empirical Analysis
753 F.2d 1224 · 1985
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 56 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 467 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. (1999)
115 federal appellate · 56 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 37 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on United States v. Nobles · Waller v. Georgia · Speiser v. Randall · Salem v. United States Lines Company · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n
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 467 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert’s testimony is relevant to the eyewitness identifications under consideration. The offer of proof should establish the presence of factors (e.g., stress, or differences in race or age as between the eyewitness and the defendant) which have been found by researchers to impair the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the proffered connection between the scientific research or test result to be presented and particular disputed factual issues in the case.”
22 later decisions 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.