United States v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
32 F.3d 921 · 1994
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Kona Technology Corp. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (2000), United States v. Alaniz (2013)
48 federal appellate · 4 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. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Delaware v. Fensterer · Davis v. Alaska
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A federal district judge may comment on the evidence, question witnesses, bring out facts not yet adduced, and maintain the pace of the trial by interrupting or setting time limits on counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The defendant establishes a prima fa-cie ease by raising an inference that the prosecution struck potential jurors solely because of race; (2) The burden then shifts to the prosecution to articulate legitimate, clear, and reasonably specific explanations for each of the challenged strikes. At this stage, the prosecution need only give a facially valid explanation; (3) At the third stage, the trial court determines whether the defendant has proven purposeful discrimination. The appellate court reviews this finding for clear error, giving great deference to the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor’s explanation was credible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We ... note that the necessity or value of the two agents’ testimony was questionable. We have reviewed defense counsel’s proffer of what testimony they would have elicited from [the two agents], and we are satisfied the issues involving the agents were adequately brought out by other testimony. Therefore, we hold ... that the exclusion of the two witnesses may be upheld under the trial court’s power to control the trial and limit testimony that would be cumulative and marginally relevant.”
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.