Packer v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “failed to apply the correct controlling authority from the Supreme Court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. Galaza · Brown v. Mayle

2. “Judge: The next question I have for you, I just want two numbers and that’s all. I want to know nothing else but two numbers. I’ll ask you this. In your last ballot what was the ballot? What was the count? Don’t tell me for or against, just numbers. Wyke: I know. The last one was 11 to 1. Judge: 11 to 1. Judge: The one before that was 10 and 2. Judge: Do you think that further deliberations might help. I think you’re off tomorrow, are you not? Wyke: Yes. Judge: Do you think if you take off now and come back Friday you might be able to make further progress? .... Wyke: It comes down to interpreting. Judge: It’s been a long time for you people. Wyke: Yes. We are getting tired of each other. It comes down to interpreting the laws as given to us, and if one person’s interpretation is inflexible in their view, I don’t know that it will do us any good. Radcliff: Or different. Judge: Has the person been deliberating? And discussing— Wyke: Yes. I’m not questioning that. We might give it a shot and come back Friday morning. If it continues we are going to be hung. Judge: If you do that, then what you’re saying to me is there’s a possibility you could reach a verdict, but let’s take a little time off. That might help? I don’t think it would hurt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Packer v. Hill

3. “The record at the hearing ... established Packer’s potential for nonconforming future behavior, despite the hearsay nature of and unknown source of some of the information. The court thus acted within its discretion in minimizing the likelihood of courtroom disruption. The court need not wait for an escape or a violent tragedy to occur before ordering an appropriate physical restraint. The court’s order was particularly appropriate in view of its finding that the “leg brace will not be visible to the jury; will not impede communications with [Packer’s] lawyer; will not detract from the dignity or the decorum of the judicial proceeding; will not be painful to the defendant; and [the defendant] will be seated before the jury enters and remain seated until the jury leaves.” Although after the trial Packer complained about the emotional distrae -594 tion and physical discomfort of the leg brace, it was a reasonable physical restraint warranted by the circumstances revealed at the hearing and not necessarily visible by the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Packer v. Hill