United States v. Luis’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.2d 37 · 1987
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2014
16 federal appellate · 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Cupp v. Naughten · Castor 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘“We believe this flexible approach remains the better course because it avoids imposing rigid requirements on trial courts under the threat that failure to give the requested charge will later be grounds for automatic reversal. In addition, such compulsion would mandate that the special identification charge be given in every case where identifica tion is implicated—as it so often is—even though the Neil v. Biggers factors (discussed below) persuasively indicate the strong reliability of defendant’s identification as a participant in the crime charged. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 382-83 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). Finally, because the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate whether this charge is needed in the case before it, adopting a rigid requirement cuts back on the trial court’s discretion in the conduct of a trial without any assurance that the fair administration of justice is thereby enhanced. Leaving the jury charge to the trial court’s discretion means that an appellate court is called upon to decide only whether the failure to give a special eyewitness identification charge under the circumstances of a given case constitutes such an abuse of the trial court’s discretion as to be reversible error.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the judge's charge fairly and accurately encompasses the theory of the defense, we have affirmed a judgment of conviction.”
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.