United States v. Bin Laden’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 1116 · 18 U.S.C. § 2332A (§ 60023 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3592 · 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Gregg v. Georgia · Pinkerton v. United States · Payne v. Tennessee · Zant v. Stephens
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ar aggravating factor’s probative value must not be outweighed by 'the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.' ” Williams,/' 2004 WL 2980027 , at (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (c)). Third,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he mantra that “death is different” really applies here. Presenting information about victim impact to a jury'that has convicted a defendant of a capital crime is different than presenting such information to a judge months after a trial is completed and at a time when the parties (and jury) are no longer exhausted from trial and no longer have frayed nerves from deliberations. As a practical matter, therefore, the Court agrees with [the defendant] that the Government should address further the nature of the information it will provide as victim impact information. Accordingly, in the exercise of its inherent authority, the Court will order the Government to outline the type and scope of the “loss, injury, and harm” suffered by each victim, his or her family members, and other individuals as relevant, and the “personal characteristics” of each victim that it intends to prove. The Court envisions a document that is akin to an informative outline, but not a revelation of evidentiary detail or the Government’s theory of its case. This can be accomplished with a written pleading or in open court before trial begins, as counsel for the Government prefer. As a legal matter, however, the Court finds that the Notice was sufficient for its purpose and need not be dismissed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Certainly, the deleterious effects of a capital defendant’s actions are an appropriate subject of sentencing consideration. Yet, the Government’s attempt to spin off multiple freestanding aggrava-tors from what should really only be one represents a strategy that should not be permitted. What is most problematic is the fact that, because such parsing of categories serves no evidentiary purpose (since such evidence would still be admitted under the aegis of the umbrella aggravator), the sole motivation for doing so is to ratchet up the number of aggravating factors and give the government free reign to trump whatever mitigating factors are raised by the jury. Rather than risk confusing jurors with unnecessarily complex jury instructions ... we think it wiser simply to consolidate the two non-statutory aggravators in question.”
1 later decision 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.