United States v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
746 F.2d 787 · 1984
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 64 Ohio St. 3d 313 - State v. Hill (1992), United States v. Hernandez (1985)
30 federal appellate · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 3109 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Mosley · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Does it sound to you like he was afraid? You saw him sitting there in the trial. Did you see his leg going up and down? He is nervous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n overruling [the defendant’s] objection and in failing to give a curative instruction, the court, in effect, gave the jury an incorrect impression that [the defendant’s] behavior off the witness stand was evidence in this instance, upon which the prosecutor was free to comment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here was no testimony that [defendant] had access to or had ever occupied the upstairs area where most of the guns [that the court admitted into evidence against him] were found. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. Furthermore, the court gave no instruction limiting the extrinsic evidence against [defendant] to the two guns found in his bedroom. While we can find no abuse of discretion in admitting the firearms against [his codefendant], their admission against [defendant] was irrelevant and prejudicial.”
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.