United States v. Hager’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.3d 167 · 2013
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Massey v. Johnson (2006), United States v. Taylor (2016)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3595 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Buckley v. Valeo
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although Juror 144 and the juror in Thompson both initially stated only that they would try to be fair, the district court here followed up by asking if there was any reason that the juror could not be fair. And each time that question was posed, Juror 144 said that there was not. The district court in Thompson , however, failed to solicit such a response.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We’re not using this process to be disrespectful to any of you. Instead, we want to ensure that you will remain anonymous so that you will not be contacted by anyone in the media, and to ensure that no outside information is communicated to any juror throughout the jury selection process and the trial. This is so that each side can have a fair and impartial trial. The fact that we are identifying you by number should have no impact at all on the presumption of innocence that the defendant is entitled to, or any impact in any other way as you consider and decide the case if you were selected to serve on the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]llowing a capital defendant to argue execution impact as a mitigator is improper .... The capital defendant is available to offer the jury all the relevant information as to his life, background, character, and the impact any sentence will have on him. To allow testimony of the impact on third parties, however, does nothing to inform the jury on any of these matters and upsets the balance set forth in [Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) ].”
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.