United States v. Warner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If an alternate replaces a juror after deliberations have begun, the court must instruct the jury to begin its deliberations anew.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Turner · State v. Jennings

2. “• In a case that was tried over a six month period, the jurors entered and exited the courthouse every day past scores of television and still cameras and reporters. • The jurors used public elevators and brushed elbows with anyone who happened to be in them. • Although the court’s intent was not to make the jurors’ names public, that effort was compromised when the jurors’ names were used in the in-court voir dire. • When jury deliberations were ready to commence in the most high profile case in Chicago in recent memory, there was no thought of sequestering the jury. • During the initial eight days of deliberations an apparent holdout juror was purportedly threatened by other jurors with a charge of bribery. • Legal research gained by a juror from the internet was — contrary to the court’s instruction — brought into the jury room in an effort to persuade the recalcitrant juror to change her position. • A reporter for the Chicago Tribune advised the district court during jury deliberations that the newspaper’s re search had disclosed major inconsistencies between answers in a jury-questionnaire and public records. • Based on the information provided by the Chicago Tribune, the district judge, in concurrence with all parties, requested the U.S. Attorney’s Office to conduct a background check on all jurors. • Jury deliberations were halted following the Chicago Tribune disclosure and the hiatus continued during the investigation of the jurors by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. • Du”

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

3. “The story behind this case began in November 1990 when Ryan, then the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, won election as Illinois’s Secretary of State. He was re-elected to that post in 1994. Throughout Ryan’s two terms in that office, [Lawrence E.] Warner [Ryan’s co-defendant] was one of Ryan’s closest unpaid advisors. One of Ryan’s duties as Secretary of State was to award leases and contracts for the office, using a process of competitive bidding for major contracts and selecting leases based on the staffs assessments of multiple options. Improprieties in awarding four leases and three contracts form the basis of the majority of the RICO and mail fraud counts against Warner and Ryan, as these leases and contracts were steered improperly to Warner-controlled entities. The result was hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits for Warner and Ryan. These benefits included financial support for Ryan’s successful 1998 campaign for Governor of Illinois.”

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