United States v. Munoz’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 401 · 1998
Citation profile
114 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States of America v. Juan Martinez (2002), United States v. Baker (2005)
114 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Payton v. New York · Old Chief v. United States · Minnesota v. Dickerson · Maryland v. Buie
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an aggregation of non-reversible errors (i.e., plain errors failing to necessitate reversal and harmless errors) can yield a denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'(1) the magnitude of the statement's prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant's guilt.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]ur role is to determine whether the judge’s behavior was so prejudicial that it denied the defendant a fair, as opposed to a perfect, trial. To rise to the level of a constitutional error, the ... judge’s actions, viewed as a whole, must amount to an intervention that could have led the jury to a predisposition of guilt by improperly confusing the functions of judge and prosecutor. The judge’s intervention in the proceedings must be quantitatively and qualitatively substantial to meet this test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Cockrell
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.