United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 87 · 1981
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably United States v. Mealy (1988), Kubat v. Thieret (1989)
77 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Blockburger v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Lego v. Twomey
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m going to give you a cautionary instruction in regard to the absence of [the absent defendant]. One of the defendants who started this trial is no longer a part of the trial. For legally sufficient reasons, which I’m not going to go into at this time, he is no longer a part of the trial. I instruct you that is not and should not be of concern to you in dealing with the question of the guilt or innocence of [the remaining defendant]. And you are not to speculate as to the absence of or why the other defendant is no longer standing trial. And his absence should not control or influence your verdict in any way whatsoever with respect to the defendant who is still here. The reason for this is even when defendants are tried jointly, the jury is called upon to determine the guilt or the innocence of each defendant separately and the jury will be called upon, even if they are joint defendants, to consider the evidence separately as to one defendant and then as to the next defendant. And that the purpose of a joint trial is not to implicate one defendant with the other, it’s just a matter of convenience. It amounts to saving court time. The fact that we have only one defendant left in this trial should be of no concern to you because whatever your verdict is, if you do reach a verdict, it has to be based solely upon the evidence that’s received in this courtroom as it relates to that defendant. I want to emphasize again that the remaining defendan”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our examination of the record satisfies us that trial counsel's performance more than met minimum professional standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court must look at the totality of circumstances in the particular case.”
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.