United States v. Barham’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 231 · 1979
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Pepe (1984), United States v. Weaver (1996)
98 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Agurs · Spinelli v. United States · Giglio 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the instructions must be sufficiently precise and specific to enable the jury to recognize and understand the defense theory, test it against the evidence presented at trial, and then make a definitive decision whether, based on that evidence and in light of the defense theory, the defendant is guilty or not guilty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“credibility was especially important in this case in which two sets of witnesses ... presented irreconcilable stories.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“essentially a recounting of the facts as seen through the rose-colored glasses of the defense — glasses that [the defendant] hoped the jurors would wear when they retired to the jury room.... As the Trial Judge commented, the requested instruction was more in the nature of a jury argument than a charge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.