Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 341 F.2d 859 - Rees v. Peyton

Rees v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

341 F.2d 859 · 1965

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 2006
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2006 · most notably Rees v. Peyton (1966), Calley v. Callaway (1975)

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

27019651970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Ker v. State of California · United States v. Rabinowitz

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

  1. “It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 , 8 S.Ct. 22 , 31 L.Ed. 80 ; Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 , 31 S.Ct. 2 , 54 L.Ed. 1021 ; Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 145 , 25 L.Ed. 244 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a juror may after verdict be queried as to information, whether documentary or oral in nature, introduced into the jury room but not put before them at trial”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was made readily and conveniently accessible to his counsel at the trial courthouse, and elsewhere, at all reasonable times”
    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.