Miller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.2d 77 · 1968
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Hobson v. Wilson (1984), United States v. Sun Myung Moon (1983)
73 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Remmer v. United States · Estes v. Texas · Mattox v. United States · Schlagenhauf v. Holder
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[w]here an extraneous influence [on the jury] is shown, the [reviewing federal] court must apply an objective test, assessing for itself the likelihood that the influence would affect a typical juror.’ ” Id. (quoting Miller v. United States, 403 F.2d 77 , 83 n. 11 (2d Cir.1968)). Based on this precedent, the Second Circuit held that a juror's affidavit was”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[wjhere, as here, the incident was explored before submission to the jury, the trial judge’s initial appraisal of the ability of the jurors to render a fair verdict in light of the objective facts should stand unless it is manifestly unreasonable, as the Court thought in Remmer, or significant new objective facts are developed.”
3 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.