Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 579 F.2d 1121 - United States v. Brady

United States v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis

579 F.2d 1121 · 1978

Citation profile

164
cited by 164 later decisions
8
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

119 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 164 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Sherlock (1989)

119 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

98019781980199020002010decided

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. § 1112 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968)

Relies on Bruton v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana · Opper v. United States · Castaneda v. Partida

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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[u]ltimately, the question is whether the jury can reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it related to separate defendants.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rather, the ultimate question is whether under all of the circumstances, it is within the capacity of the jurors to follow the court’s admonitory instructions and, correspondingly whether they can collate and appraise the independent evidence against each defendant solely upon that defendant’s own acts, statements, and conduct. [Citations.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the legislative history [of the Act] indicates that use of supplemental sources should be used only when the voter lists deviate substantially from the makeup of the local community.”
    2 later decisions 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.