United States v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
507 F.2d 166 · 1975
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Sneed (1992), Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co. (1980)
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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
Relies on Patton v. United States · Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Baldwin v. New York Williams
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] jury has not reached a valid verdict until deliberations are over, the result is announced in open court, and no dissent by a juror is registered. Even at this point, where the verdict is announced in open court and no dissent is voiced, the verdict may not be accepted by the court if a poll taken before the verdict is recorded indicates a lack of unanimity.... Votes taken in the jury room prior to being returned in court are preliminary.... This applies particularly where more than one count has been submitted to the jury, for continuing deliberations may shake views expressed on counts previously considered. Jurors are not bound by votes in the jury room and remain free to register dissent even after the verdict has been announced, though before the verdict is recorded.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The danger inherent in taking a partial verdict is the premature conversion of a tentative jury vote into an irrevocable one.... It is improper for a trial court to intrude on the jury’s deliberative process in such a way as to cut short its opportunity to fully consider the evidence. Such an intrusion would deprive the defendant of “the very real benefit of reconsideration and change of mind or heart.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even at this point, where the verdict is announced to the court and no dissent is voiced, the verdict may not be accepted by the court if a poll taken before the verdict is recorded indicates lack of unanimity.”
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.