United States v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
438 F.3d 642 · 2006
Citation profile
29 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. White (2007), United States v. Clay (2012)
29 federal appellate ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Estelle v. McGuire · Remmer 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts— Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n Cage [v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990) ], the Supreme Court held that the instruction at issue violated the Constitution because a reasonable juror “could have” interpreted the instruction at issue to permit a finding of guilt without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since then, however, in Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991), the Supreme Court clarified that the proper inquiry is not whether the instruction “could have” been unconstitutionally interpreted, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so interpret it....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Perry waived his right to such a hearing when he specifically agreed to have the court instruct the jury. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).... “An attorney cannot agree in open court with a judge’s proposed course of conduct and then charge the court with error in following that course.” United States v. Sloman, 909 F.2d 176, 182 (6th Cir.1990). Perry therefore waived any objection he might have had to the court’s instruction to the jury regarding the method to deal with the unadmitted materials the jury inadvertently discovered in Perry’s bookbag.”
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.