Amsler v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.2d 37 · 1967
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), United States v. Giese (1979)
78 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Pinkerton 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A court is not bound to accept the language of a requested instruction proffered by counsel nor to give a proposed requested instruction if the court gives it in substance.” (Id. at 52)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defense counsel argued that twelve jurors should have been seated in the jury box and challenges exercised alternately against the panel with replacements when any one was excused until twelve jurors were seated who had passed all challenges. The manner of qualifying a jury is largely discretionary with the trial judge. No specific method is prescribed. As the judge said: “* * * so at all times counsel knows who their ultimate jury is going to be, and it is not exercising a challenge and not knowing who you might draw subsequently.” We think the “Arizona System” as used in selecting the jury was eminently fair to both sides and the trial judge did not err in this respect. A similar system of qualifying a jury was approved in Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396 , 14 S.Ct. 410 , 38 L.Ed. 208 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person charged with treason or other capital offense shall at least three entire days before commencement of trial be furnished with a copy of the indictment and a list of the veniremen, and of the witnesses to be produced on the trial of proving the indictment, stating the place of abode of each veniremen and witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.