United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

113 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No rule of thumb can circumscribe definite bounds of when and where, or under what circumstances [an Aller instruction] should be given or refused.... This is not in keeping with sound justice and the preservation of human liberties and security. We are convinced that the evils far outweigh the benefits, and decree that its use shall no longer be tolerated and approved by this court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kersey v. State · 2013 UT App 92 - State v. Ginter

2. “You should endeavor to reach an agreement, if at all possible. The case has been ably tried by both sides. In endeavoring to arrive at a verdict, you must keep in mind that in order to return a •verdict each of you must agree. You have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reach an agreement if it can be done without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. You should examine the issue submitted to you with an open mind and with candor and with proper regard and deference to the opinions of others. In the course of your deliberations you should not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you are convinced that it is erroneous. You should not, however, surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or the effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Yet you should listen to each other’s arguments with a disposition to be convinced. I want you now to return to the jury room and resume your deliberations and discuss the matter amongst yourselves in a friendly spirit and endeavor to agree . upon a verdict if you can do so. I will ask you to return to your jury room for further deliberations. (Tr. 484-485).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Thomas

3. “Hereafter, in this circuit, trial judges are not to give instructions either in the main body of the charge or in the form of a supplement that direct a juror to distrust his own judgment if he finds a large majority of the jurors taking a view different from his. Such an instruction will be deemed error, normally reversible error. Conceivably, in very extraordinary circumstances the error may be found so inconsequential as to avoid the necessity of reversal on appeal. But hereafter this Court will not let a verdict stand which may have been influenced in any way by an Allen charge. We predicate our decision on the basis of the potential for prejudice its future use may generate and the profound difficulty in confining its use within just and equitable bounds. Its peccancy comes from its tendency to hurt, from its tendency to erode the juror’s capacity for meaningful group deliberation with its concomitant arguing, influencing, and exchange of views. As a prophylactic device to eliminate future vexation, our prohibition shall have prospective application only in those jury trials which shall be conducted hereafter. Id. at 420.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kersey v. State