United States v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.3d 562 · 1996
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Hill (2001), United States v. Edwards (2002)
16 federal appellate · 7 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. § 242
Relies on United States v. Olano · Hudson v. McMillian · Doerr v. Doerr · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · Easter House 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendants' involvement in organized crime; (2) the defendants' participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendants' past attempts to interfere with the judicial process or witnesses; (4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendants will suffer a lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties; and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to intimidation and harassment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to ensure against a serious threat to juror safety”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unless the type of circumstances listed in Krout exist, where the defendant has essentially compromised his right, he should receive a verdict, not from anonymous decisionmakers, but from people he can name as responsible for their actions. In closer cases on the merits of requiring anonymity, there might be room for a harmless error analysis, but this is not such a case. The conviction must be reversed and remanded for retrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tucker
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.