United States v. Montague’s Empirical Analysis
958 F.2d 1094 · 1992
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Alzanki (1995), Thomas v. United States (1994)
13 federal appellate · 10 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
Relies on Grunewald v. United States · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n · Dade County v. Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n · United States v. Monton · Rodriguez 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“He asserts that there was no express or implied charge of recent fabrication, or improper influence or motive to be rebutted. The government rightly counters that defendant's trial counsel, during her cross examination of [the witness], questioned him concerning his guilty plea and his hope for leniency. We agree with the trial judge that this constitutes at the very least an "implied charge ... of ... improper ... motive," as required by Rule 801(d)(1)(B). The record bolsters our confidence in this conclusion by disclosing that the United States offered to withhold tender of the prior statement if the trial counsel would agree not to argue in closing to the jury that [the witness] hoped by his testimony to influence the sentencing judge toward leniency. Trial counsel declined the government’s offer. The trial court admitted the statement. The defense did use the argument of improper motive in closing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hammons v. State“a prior statement is admissible as substantive evidence only if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. State“The fact that a prior consistent statement was made after the appearance of a motive to fabricate does not render it per se outside the terms of Rule 801(d)(1)(B).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Evans 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.