United States v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 1374 · 1993
Citation profile
235 federal appellate · 8 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 373 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably United States v. Nordby (2000), Duckett v. Godinez (1995)
235 federal appellate · 8 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 11 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. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Olano · Batson v. Kentucky · Barker v. Wingo
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 373 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test for abuse of discretion by the district court is whether a joint trial was so manifestly prejudicial as to require the trial judge to exercise his discretion in but one way, by ordering a separate trial.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The best evidence of the jury's ability to compartmentalize the evidence is its failure to convict all defendants on all counts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the jury may reasonably be expected to collate and appraise the individual evidence against each defendant; (2) the judge’s diligence in instructing the jury on the limited purposes for which certain evidence may be used; (3) whether the nature of the evidence and the legal concepts involved are within the competence of the ordinary juror; and (4) whether [the defendant can] show, with some particularity, a risk that the joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.”
6 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.