United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
597 F.2d 485 · 1979
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Calderon (1997), United States v. Wilson (1997)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Relies on Mincey v. Arizona · Remmer v. United States · Michigan v. Tyler · United States v. Peltier · Remmer 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant cannot learn of juror misconduct during the trial, gamble on a favorable verdict by remaining silent, and then complain in a post-verdict motion that the verdict was prejudicially influenced by that misconduct.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Steven Robert Bolinger, Robert Jerome McTeer Bruce Hayes Munro, Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Johnny Dean Hall, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Oscar Cruz-Barrientos, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente · Carlos Yammon Pena v. The State of Wyoming“The rule requiring a showing that the evidence of jury tampering is newly discovered and the rule of waiver established by the above cited cases are not aimed necessarily at discovering a defendant’s complicity in the improper communication to the jury. The policies behind both rules fully encompass any knowledge possessed by the defendant before the verdict whether it be innocent or not. Such knowledge should be disclosed to the trial judge before the verdict so that an attempt can be made to salvage the trial by ridding the jury of prejudicial influences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.