United States v. Greer’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 1383 · 1980
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Pennell (1984), United States v. Bagnariol (1981)
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3163 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Remmer v. United States · Michel v. United States · Bullock v. United States · Mattox v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a jur- or may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jurors attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wiser v. People · People v. Cornett“The authorities are unequivocal in holding that presenting information to the jury about possible sentencing is prejudicial. Breach of this standard has often been grounds for reversal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”
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.