United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
688 F.2d 1121 · 1982
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Asplundh Manufacturing Division v. Benton Harbor Engineering (1995), United States v. Meling (1995)
28 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Relies on Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · ITT Gilfillan v. Clayton · Kentucky v. Indiana · Goldstein v. Garrity · Lustig 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Opinion testimony by a lay witness may be admitted under Rule 701 whenever the witness cannot adequately communicate to the jury the facts upon which his or her opinion is based. United States v. Skeet, 665 F. 2d 983, 985 (9th Cir. 1982). The theory behind Rule 701 ‘is that wherever inference and conclusions can be drawn by the jury as well as by the witness, the witness is superfluous; ... a lay opinion is received because and whenever his facts cannot be so told as to make the jury as able as he to draw the inference.’ 7 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1978) sec. 1917.8 at 10 (emphasis in original). Thus, in order to conclude that such testimony is admissible, the court must find that the witness’ testimony is based upon his or her personal observation and recollection of concrete facts, United States v. Skeet, supra at 985 , and that those facts cannot be described in sufficient detail to adequately convey to the jury the substance of the testimony. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 701 indicate that direct and cross-examination of the lay witness testifying as to his or her opinion is relied upon to verify the accuracy of the testimony.” 688 F. 2d 1121, 1124 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The jury was free to believe or disregard [the witness's] testimony; the issue of whether the defendant was the same person as the bank robber was left to the jury for its ultimate determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
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.