United States v. Hendrix’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 362 · 2007
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Jackson (2010), United States v. Blair (2013)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3558 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Almendarez-Torres 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The critical question in determining whether [the opponent] has proved purposeful discrimination at the last stage is the persuasiveness of the [challengeres justification for his strike. The issue is whether the trial court finds the [ehallengerj’s race-neutral explanations to be credible. When approaching the issue of credibility, the court assesses how reasonable, or how improbable the [challenger’s] explanations are; and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy. Batson and its progeny direct trial judges to assess the honesty — not the accuracy — of a proffered race-neutral explanation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the [opponent of the strike] must establish a prima facie case that the strike was racially motivated. The burden then shifts to the [maker of the peremptory challenge] to articulate race-neutral reasons for the strike. Finally, the trial judge must assess the credibility of the prosecution’s explanation and determine if the [opponent] has established purposeful discrimination. The ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with the opponent of the strike.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
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.