Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 F.3d 262 - United States v. Beasley

United States v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis

48 F.3d 262 · 1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2016

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

120199520002010decided

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. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1866

Relies on Ross v. Oklahoma · Rosales-Lopez v. United States · Mu'Min v. Virginia · Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc. · Dennis 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Beasley [the defendant] could have made another argument. Although peremptory challenges are not of a constitutional dimension, see Ross, 487 U.S. at 88 , 108 S.Ct. at 2278 , it could be argued that the designation of ten peremptory challenges under Fed.R.Crim.P. 24 is a matter of federal law. A district court error, hence, in refusing to strike a juror for cause would deprive the defendant of a federally granted peremptory challenge .... However, Beasley does not make this argument.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[t]he process of empaneling a jury is firmly entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge,'”
    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.