United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.2d 582 · 1989
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Phibbs (1993), United States v. Moreno (89-1150/1208) (1990)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jannotti v. United States · Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department · AWECO, Inc. v. United States · United States v. Raineri
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.
“[e]very person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Federal Rules of Evidence strongly disfavor barring witnesses on competency grounds due to mental incapacity. As we wrote in United States v. Ramirez, 871 F.2d 582, 584 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 841 , 110 S.Ct. 127 , 107 L.Ed.2d 88 (1989): What must be remembered, and is often confused, is that “competency” is a matter of status not ability. Thus, the only two groups of persons specifically rendered incompetent as witnesses by the Federal Rules of Evidence are judges (Rule 605) and jurors (Rule 606). The authority of the court to control the admissibility of the testimony of persons so impaired in some manner that they cannot give meaningful testimony is to be found outside of Rule 601. For example, the judge always has the authority under Rule 403 to balance the probative value of testimony against its prejudicial effect. Similarly, under Rule 603, the inability of a witness to take or comprehend an oath or affirmation will allow the judge to exclude that person’s testimony. An argument can also be constructed that a person might be impaired to the point that he would not be able to satisfy the “personal knowledge” requirement of Rule 602. Again though, it is important to remember that such decisions by a trial judge to either admit or exclude testimony will only be reversed for a clear abuse of discretion. (Footnote omitted.) 999 F.2d at 1068-69 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hat must be remembered, and is often confused, is that 'competency' is a matter of status not ability.”
2 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.