Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 652 F.3d 56 - United States v. Fernández-Hernández

United States v. Fernández-Hernández’s Empirical Analysis

652 F.3d 56 · 2011

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Gall v. United States · Faretta v. California · Rushen v. Spain · United States v. Gagnon · Rogers v. United States

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant's substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f Mr. Verdin had a constitutional right to be present at the exchange [between the judge and the jury], it stemmed from his due process right to be present 9 It should be noted that Anderson and May also do not conflict with one another. While Anderson dealt with communication between a judge and a deliberating jury regarding trial exhibits and testimony, May addressed a judge’s communication with a deliberating jury when that communication related to a pure question of law. 14 No. 2011AP394-CR.npc ' . . . to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The defense recognizes that beginning with Benmuhar , ... the First Circuit has repeatedly held that "the overwhelming national interests served by [the] use of English in a United States Court justifies conducting proceedings in the District of Puerto Rico in English," so as not to violate the fair cross-section and equal protection requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”
    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.