United States v. Tejeda’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.3d 44 · 2007
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Martin (2008), United States v. DeCologero (2008)
16 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Bruton v. United States · Neder v. United States · Smith v. Phillips · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our usual standard of review once the trial judge has made an appropriate inquiry. . . is an abuse of discretion standard, which recognizes that the district court `has wide discretion in deciding how to handle and how to respond to allegations of juror bias and misconduct that arise during a trial.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our usual standard of review once the trial judge has made an appropriate inquiry, and the one that we utilize here, is an abuse of discretion standard, which recognizes that the district court “has wide discretion in deciding how to handle and how to respond to allegations of juror bias and misconduct that arise during a trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cheney“This case involves (1) a risk of a perception by a juror of an implicit threat from someone who might, in the juror's view, be associated with the defendant; and (2) the risk that this 'threat' might influence the juror's ability to impartially evaluate the evidence.”
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.