United States v. Barshov’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “a colorable showing of extrinsic influence....”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Darby · United States v. Cousins

2. “whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Conover · United States v. Schwarz

3. “In order to prevent the jury's being prejudiced by inadmissible hearsay, James establishes two procedural safeguards. Ideally, before trial the prosecutor should make a showing of substantial independent evidence that the statement is admissible. Then at the conclusion of evidence, considering both the prosecution's evidence and the defense's evidence, the trial court must find that the preponderance of the independent evidence shows the statement is admissible. The district court should, whenever reasonably practicable, require the showing of a conspiracy and of the connection of the defendant with it before admitting declarations of a coconspirator. If it determines it is not reasonably practical to require the showing to be made before admitting the evidence, the court may admit the statement subject to being connected up. ..... Regardless of whether the proof has been made in the preferred order, or the coconspirator's statement has been admitted subject to later connection, on appropriate motion at the conclusion of all the evidence the court must determine as a factual matter whether the prosecution has shown by a preponderance of the evidence independent of the statement itself (1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the coconspirator and the defendant against whom the coconspirator's statement is offered were members of the conspiracy, and (3) that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy... . If the court concludes that the prosec”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Morales