United States v. Forrest’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 446 · 1980
Citation profile
118 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Bermea (1994)
118 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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. § 1504 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 245 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 18 U.S.C. § 659
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Griffin v. California
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It makes no difference in this case that it was Forrest himself who initiated the contact that may have poisoned the jury. We reject the suggestion that Forrest may not be heard here to complain of the results of his own misconduct. He has been convicted of jury tampering and for that misconduct is subject to punishment. That is an entirely discrete matter. At issue *** in this case was whether Forrest had dealt with stolen goods, not whether he had tried to corrupt the judicial system. A fair and impartial jury cannot be permitted to draw the conclusion that, because a defendant attempted to fix his trial, he is guilty of the offense for which he is being tried. It is conceivable that a defendant, innocent of the charge being tried, might attempt to tamper with a jury to assure a favorable verdict.” Forrest, 620 F.2d at 458 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is married to, associated with, or in the company of a criminal does not support the inference that the person is a criminal or shares in the criminal's guilty knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party claiming that an improperly influenced jury returned a verdict against him must be given an opportunity to prove that claim.”
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.