United States v. Slade’s Empirical Analysis
627 F.2d 293 · 1980
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Robb (2000), United States v. Dale (1993)
72 federal appellate · 8 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 292
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Harrington v. California · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Fahy v. Connecticut
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“important that the judge instruct the jurors that their personal understanding of the tape supersedes the text in a transcript.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is within the trial court's discretion to allow the jury to use an accurate transcript to 'assist them in listening to [a] tape.' ... The need for a transcript tends to arise where, as here, portions of a tape were relatively inaudible and the identity of the speakers was not automatically clear to a listener.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court has great discretion in severance matters, with the balance generally to be “struck in favor of joint trials.” United States v. Hines, 455 F.2d 1317, 1334 , cert. denied, 406 U.S. 975 , 92 S.Ct. 2427 , 32 L.Ed.2d 675 (1972). Absent a dramatic disparity of evidence, any prejudice caused by joinder is best dealt with by instructions to the jury to give individual considerations to each defendant. United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 72 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 [ 97 S.Ct. 2641 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 ] (1977). . . . The evidence [against the moving defendant] was independent and substantial. The trial judge properly instructed the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of each defendant separately.”
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.