United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.2d 834 · 1975
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Garza (2009), 40 Cal. 3d 239 - Serna v. Superior Court (1985)
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 3500
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Hoffa v. United States · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Cruz v. Hauck
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he rule we announce today, . places the primary burden on the courts and the prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial. . ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ $ A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than the defendant. . . . [Footnote omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . Thus, after Robinson, the Ross requirement that the accused present a ‘plausible claim’ of prejudice is not satisfied by the mere assertion that the accused cannot remember his whereabouts on the day of the offense or by the ‘slender hope’ that a witness, now unavailable, night have been able to come forth with testimony favorable to the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crawford v. State““. . . Under the test enunciated in Ross and refined in cases like Robinson, appellant still has the burden of demonstrating some ‘special circumstances,’ or some prejudice to his case. Such a showing requires more than a general assertion that the accused has difficulty remembering the day of the illegal transaction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crawford v. State
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.