United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.3d 963 · 2008
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. El-Mezain (2011), United States v. Broussard (2012)
25 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. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Barker v. Wingo · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Atkins v. Virginia
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he jury was not required to find that a factor was mitigating, even if it believed the factor’s factual predicate to be true. All the law requires is that jurors be aware that they can consider a factor to be mitigating. For example, no juror found that Jackson, “experienced persistent falling when trying to walk until he was 5 years old and this factor is mitigating.” In reaching that conclusion, the jurors could have believed Jackson experienced problems walking but that the factor did not weigh against a sentence of death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in all but the very clearest and most compelling cases, the district court, rather than grant ... a motion [to dismiss the indictment] prior to trial, should carry it with the case, and make the determination of whether actual, substantial prejudice resulted from the improper delay in light of what actually transpired at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Argument by reference is not permitted; an appellant who requests 'the adoption of previously filed legal and factual arguments ... abandonfs those] arguments by failing to argue them in the body of his brief.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ploof 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.