United States v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
935 F.2d 1380 · 1991
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 11 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 212 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Mezzanatto (1995), United States v. Frazier (2004)
91 federal appellate · 11 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 26 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. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (§ 201 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3154 (§ 201 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno
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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“admissibility of 'reverse 404(b)' evidence depends on a straightforward balancing of the evidence's probative value against considerations such as undue waste of time and confusion of the issues,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” . D.R.E. Rule 404(b) provides: "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”
5 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.