United States v. Birdsell’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 645 · 1985
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co. (1989), United States v. Laury (1993)
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 20 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Estelle v. Williams · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Raphan v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co.
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.
“[Appellant] also asserts that the district court failed to safeguard the impartiality of the jury when it failed to ascertain whether the jury had read or been influenced by an allegedly prejudicial article which appeared in a local newspaper on the second day of trial. The record reflects that defense counsel never raised the issue of prejudicial trial publicity. In introductory instructions, the court cautioned the jury that they must “not consider anything [they] may have read or heard about the case outside of the courtroom whether before or during the trial.” [Appellant] has alleged no facts from which this Court could conclude that any of the jury members even read the article. Accordingly, he has shown no plain error in the trial court’s failure to question the jurors about the newspaper article.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a mental disease or defect rendering him ... unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“obvious, substantial, and so basic and prejudicial that the resulting trial lacks the fundamental elements of justice.”
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.