Jones v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “decisions that narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms, as well as constitutional determinations that place particular conduct or persons covered by the statute beyond the State’s power to punish.... Such rules apply retroactively because they necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal or faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 34 F. Supp. 3d 748 - United States v. Young

2. “merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with use of invalidated procedure might have been acquitted otherwise. Because of this more speculative connection to innocence, we give retroactive effect to only a small set of watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 34 F. Supp. 3d 748 - United States v. Young

3. “(1) the defendant’s judgment must be final when the rule is announced; (2) the rule must in fact be new; and (3) the rule must be either a substantive rule of criminal law or a watershed rule of criminal procedure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 34 F. Supp. 3d 748 - United States v. Young