United States v. Harrell’s Empirical Analysis
436 F.2d 606 · 1970
Citation profile
129 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States v. James (1979), United States v. Halbert (1981)
129 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Boykin v. Alabama · Kimbrough 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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are of the view, however, that the question of entrapment in this case was properly for decision by the jury as a factual matter, not by the trial judge as a matter of law. Goss v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 376 F.2d 812 ; Cline v. United States, 8 Cir., 1920, 20 F.2d 494 . As stated in Goss, supra: ‘The issue of entrapment is a question for the jury unless as a matter of law_ the defendant has established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was unlawfully entrapped.’ Here, it is apparent that the evidence was susceptible of more than one interpretation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that there may be aggravated circumstances in which [even] the strongest corrective instruction would be insufficient, as, for example, where the guilty plea of one codefendant necessarily implicates another or others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Again, we decide only the case before us. But we think that the evidentiary purpose ordinarily to be served by proof of a co-defendant’s plea of guilty is so shadowy, so insubstantial that it would be the better practice in the run-of-the-mill cases to exclude such proof altogether.”
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.