United States of America v. Jin Han Kim’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.3d 1079 · 1999
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Davis (2002), United States v. Arellano-Torres (2002)
18 federal appellate · 2 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 Schad v. Arizona · Mizuno v. Salisbury · United States v. Anguiano · United States v. Shrestha · United States v. Echeverry
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t was not necessary for the jurors in this case to unanimously agree on a specific classification of Kim’s conduct. Nor was it necessary for them to specify which conduct led them to conclude that Kim was an accessory. All that was necessary was a unanimous decision that Kim knowingly and intentionally helped his [co-defendant] in the possession of stolen goods. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give a specific unanimity instruction to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]entencing courts are instead required to give careful consideration to each of the factors specifically enumerated in the guideline and determine, based on those factors, whether a concurrent, partially concurrent, or consecutive sentence will achieve a `reasonable punishment' and `avoid unwarranted disparity.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Kim's contention that the jury note in this case indicated anything more than confusion over the legal standards to be applied is pure speculation, which is insufficient to mandate a specific unanimity instruction.”
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.