United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.3d 682 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on United States v. Booker · Santobello v. New York · Neder v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Keeble 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must show both that the instructions did not adequately state the law and that the error was prejudicial to [him] because the jury was likely to be confused or misled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we `consider[] the instructions as a whole, along with all of the evidence and arguments,' to determine whether `the jury was misinformed about the applicable law.'”
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.