United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1262 · 1994
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Humphries (2004)
31 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Cortez · Adams v. Williams
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unless the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the government, would not allow a reasonable jury so to find.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“can often be inferred from the totality of circumstances shown by the Government.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e understand the mandatory, unambiguous language of the rule to reflect the drafters’ recognition that any defendant in Farnham’s position would find it almost impossible to sustain the burden of proving the negative inference that the second agent’s testimony would have been different had he been sequestered. A strict prejudice requirement of this sort would be not only unduly harsh but also self-defeating, in that it would swallow a rule carefully designed to aid the truth-seeking process and preserve the durability and acceptability of verdicts.”
2 later decisions 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.