United States v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 951 · 1980
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 7 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Carlisle v. United States (1996), United States v. Sanchez-Lopez (1989)
93 federal appellate · 7 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 16 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 28 U.S.C. § 1867
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Mahan v. Howell · Lustig v. United States · Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“joinder was so manifestly prejudicial that it outweighed the dominant concern with judicial economy and compelled exercise of the court's discretion to sever.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fundamental standards of relevancy, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude cumulative evidence and to insure orderly presentation of a case, require the admission of testimony which tends to prove that a person other than the defendant committed the crime that is charged.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To avoid this exaggeration, we adopted a test for substantiality which judges the effect of any deviation not in terms of percentages but in terms of its impact on the absolute numerical composition of the grand jury ... That is, to determine substantiality we look to people not percentages. Blacks and males, it is true, are underrepresented in an absolute sense by 2.9% and 4.4% respectively. Looking only at people, however, it is also true that in an array of 100 jurors, the absolute numerical effect of the underrepresentation of Blacks and males would be that the array would include 2.9 fewer Blacks and 4.4 fewer males. A grand jury of 23 drawn from this array on the average would underrepresent Blacks by less than one juror and males by approximately one juror. This is not substantial underrepresentation.”
1 later decision 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.