United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
67 F.3d 320 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Old Chief v. United States (1997), United States v. Wacker (1995)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Weatherford v. Bursey · Drew v. United States · Dioguardi v. United States · Benjamin v. Brown
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t diverts the attention of the jury from the question of the defendant's responsibility for the crime charged to the improper issue of his bad character.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the statute] does not embrace additional facts such as a particular kind of felony. Congress required no gradation for seriousness, numerosity or recency____ ... It is, of course, highly likely that such evidence would influence the jury’s perception of the defendant, suggesting that he is a sufficient threat to society to warrant additional incarceration. Such information, however, has no tendency to make more or less probable the existence of the fact of a prior conviction, which is the only information that Congress has deemed of consequence concerning the defendant’s criminal record. And it is precisely the tendency of such evidence to prejudice the jury’s deliberations that makes it suspect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tave“[a]s the circuit precedent and the government's concession indicate, at least when the defendant stipulates to the fact of a felony conviction, the district court should avoid mentioning the nature of the prior felony to the jury.”
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.