United States v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 468 · 1972
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Olano (1993), United States v. Phillips (1981)
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 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
Relies on Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York Williams · United States v. Virginia Erection Corp.
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce the prescribed number of jurors becomes 'the jury,' then, and immediately, any other persons are strangers to its proceedings. Their presence destroys the sanctity of the jury and a mistrial is necessary.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he presence of the alternate in the jury room violated the cardinal principle that the deliberations of the jury shall remain private and secret in every case. The presence of any person other than the jurors to whom the case has been submitted for decision impinges upon that privacy and secrecy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“; (2) An inquiry at a hearing under a standard which requires a showing of prejudice would itself be a dangerous intrusion into the proceedings and privacy of the jury; and (3) The purpose sought to be achieved at such a hearing is not of sufficient importance to warrant such an inquiry in comparison to the possible harm or appearance of interference. The decision in Beasley was that the trial court's”
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.