United States v. Puff’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 171 · 1954
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), Spinkellink v. Wainwright (1978)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 15 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 3052
Relies on Reynolds v. States · Logan v. United States · Phillips v. Commissioner · Johnson v. Stevenson · Shepard v. United States
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party is entitled to an array of impartial jurors to which he may direct his peremptory challenges____ [A] party is entitled to no more. Having no legal right to a jury which includes those who because of scruple or bias he thinks might favor his cause, he suffers no prejudice if jurors, even without sufficient cause, are excused by the judge. Only if a judge without justification overrules a challenge for cause and thus leaves on the panel a juror not impartial, does legal error occur.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jim · Crawford v. Bounds“: if, as he urges, it may include jurors with bias or scruples against capital punishment it must if it is to have”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the defendants were indicted and to be tried for a crime punishable with death, those jurors who stated on voir dire that they had `conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the death penalty for crime' were rightly permitted to be challenged by the government for cause. A juror who has conscientious scruples on any subject, which prevent him from standing indifferent between the government and the accused, and from trying the case according to the law and the evidence, is not an impartial juror. * * * And the principle has been applied to the very question now before us by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Cornell [Fed.Cas. No. 14,868], 2 Mason, 91, 105, and by Mr. Justice Baldwin in United States v. Wilson [Fed.Cas. No. 16,730], Baldw., 78, 83, as well as by the courts of every state in which the question has arisen, and by express statute in many states.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crawford v. Bounds
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.