United States v. Binder’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 595 · 1985
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Morales (1997), United States v. Rahm (1993)
133 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 16 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. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Massiah v. United States · Brewer v. Williams · North Carolina v. Butler
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be based on particular facts and circumstances of the case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Permitting the replay of the videotaped testimony in the jury room during deliberation was equivalent to allowing a live witness to testify a second time in the jury room. The same consideration and procedures should be employed for videotaped testimony as are employed in the rereading of live testimony. If it is appropriate to allow the jury to hear the testimony of a witness a second time at all, the preferred procedure would require the preparation of a transcript of videotaped testimony and a rereading of that testimony to the jury in the courtroom with all parties present.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[tjhe testimony of the experts ... was not limited to references to psychological literature or experience or to a discussion of a class of victims generally. Rather the experts testified that these particular children in this particular case could be believed. The jury in effect was imper-missibly being asked to accept an expert’s determination that these particular witnesses were truthful.”
4 later decisions 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.