United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 21 · 1992
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Washington (1994), United States v. Yong Hyon Kim (1994)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Florida v. Bostick · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Graves v. United States · Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a springboard for arguing facts not in evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think that Eley may be distinguishable from the case at bar, because it appears that the defense lawyer's argument in that case was limited to the contention that the absence of fingerprint evidence weakened the prosecution's case against his client-an argument that the Government concedes to be appropriate. However, as Appellants point out, some of the language in Eley seems to go further, suggesting that the kinds of inferences urged by Hoffman's counsel in this case would be permissible even in the absence of any evidentiary foundation. See Eley, [ 288 Md. at 553 , 419 A.2d 384 ] (suggesting that unexplained absence of fingerprint evidence "permit[s] the adverse inference that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the State"). To the extent that Eley so holds, we part company with the Maryland Court of Appeals[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . Hoffman's attorney moved from arguing fair inferences from the record to arguing the existence of facts not in the record- viz., that the police did not look for fingerprints, that fingerprints could have been obtained from the plastic bags containing the narcotics and that standard police procedure required fingerprint analysis. Because neither defense attorney had laid any evidentiary foundation for those assertions-by, for example, asking one of the officers on cross-examination whether the plastic bags were (or could have been) tested for fingerprints, and whether standard procedure required such testing-Hoffman's argument was improper.[ ] Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err, much less abuse its discretion, in refusing to permit the argument.”
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.