United States v. Mortimer’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 240 · 1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States v. Stevens (2000), United States v. Burke (2003)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Arizona v. Fulminante · Johnson v. United States · Gomez v. United States · Rogers v. Loether
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial consists of a contest between litigants before a judge. When the judge is absent at a `critical stage' the forum is destroyed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A trial consists of a contest between litigants before a judge. When the judge is absent at a "critical stage" the forum is destroyed. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873 , 109 S.Ct. 2237 , 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). There is no trial. The structure has been removed. There is no way of repairing it. The framework "within which the trial proceeds" has been eliminated. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). The verdict is a nullity. Gomez, 490 U.S. at 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2237 , 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). We cannot, of course, anticipate every circumstance under which the judge's absence may destroy the structure. The structure normally stands if the parties consent to excuse the presence of a judge. Id. at 870 , 109 S.Ct. 2237 ; United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 605 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, [524] U.S. [932], 118 S.Ct. 2332 , 141 L.Ed.2d 705 (1998); Stirone v. United States, 341 F.2d 253, 256 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 902 , 85 S.Ct. 1446 , 14 L.Ed.2d 284 (1965). No consent occurred here. Before whom was defense counsel to offer consent? That defense counsel continued her summation cannot be construed as consent. Was she to stop in midsentence as it were and wait for such time as the judge should reappear? She did her best under the circumstances but her carrying on in adversity cannot be turned into agreement to the judge's absence.”
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.