Wilson v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
770 F.2d 1482 · 1985
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Keenan (1998), United States v. Baker (1993)
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Illinois v. Allen · Estelle v. Williams · Bates v. State Bar · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · United States v. Mazurie
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`although no [curative] instruction was requested (regarding shackling), the better course might have been for the trial court sua sponte to give an instruction concerning the shackles.... Nevertheless, we decline to impose upon the trial court the mandatory responsibility of giving such an instruction when the defendant fails to request one. The choice whether an instruction should be given should ordinarily lie with the defendant[.]'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen the jury's view of a defendant or witness in shackles is brief ... or inadvertent, the defendant must make an affirmative showing of prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not absolute. The trial court has discretion to use shackles or other security measures when circumstances dictate. The trial court- must balance the prejudicial effect of shackling with considerations of courtroom decorum and security.... [S]hackling is proper where there is a serious threat of escape or danger to those in and around the courtroom or where disruption in the courtroom is likely in the absence of shackles.”
2 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.