United States v. Jadlowe’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.3d 1 · 2010
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3127 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Kotteakos v. United States · Chimel v. California · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we consider de novo whether an instruction embodied an error of law, but we review for abuse of discretion whether the instructions adequately explained the law or whether they tended to confuse or mislead the jury on the controlling issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not all premature jury discussion about a case will compromise a defendant's fair trial rights, particularly where the conversation does not reflect a point of view about the evidence or the outcome”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”
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.