Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 FSUPP2D 621 - United States v. Umana

United States v. Umana’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3592 · 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Crawford v. Washington · Gregg v. Georgia · Barefoot v. Estelle · Zant v. Stephens

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

  1. “It is, of course, not easy to predict future behavior. The fact that such a determination is difficult, however, does not mean that it cannot be made. Indeed, prediction of future criminal conduct is an essential element in many of the decisions rendered throughout our criminal justice system.... [A]ny sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what punishment to impose. For those sentenced to prison, these same predictions must be made by parole authorities. The task that a [capital sentencing] jury must perform in answering the ... question [of future dangerousness] is thus basically no different from the task performed countless times each day throughout the American system of criminal justice. What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is nothing per se unconstitutional about considering a defendant's lack of remorse as a characteristic that favors imposition of the death penalty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.