Arroyo v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 35 · 1982
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Salz (1993), Lowe v. Commack Union Free School District (1989)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Sandstrom v. Montana · Engle v. Isaac · Cupp v. Naughten · Bollenbach 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A supplemental charge must be viewed in a special light. It will enjoy special prominence in the minds of the jurors for several reasons. First, it will have been the most recent, or among the most recent, bit of instruction they will have heard, and will thus be freshest in their minds. Moreover, it will have been isolated from the other instructions they have heard, thus bringing it into the foreground of their thoughts. Because supplemental instructions are generally brief and are given during a break in the jury’s deliberations, they will be received by the jurors with heightened alertness rather than with the normal attentiveness which may well flag from time to time during a lengthy initial charge. And most importantly, the supplemental charge will normally be accorded special emphasis by the jury because it will generally have been given in response to a question from the jury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of the special prominence of the presumption language by reason of its presence in a supplemental instruction, see Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 , 66 S.Ct. 402 , 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946), and the series of questions from the jury that preceded it, we cannot conclude that the offending language was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“last word is apt to be the decisive word.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tart v. McGann
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.