United States v. Hack’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 862 · 1986
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Hahn (2004), Mitchell v. Maynard (1996)
79 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 49 U.S.C. § 1301
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Denno · Solem v. Helm · Illinois v. Allen · Estelle v. Williams
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n deciding on a motion for severance, the district court has a duty to weigh ihe prejudice resulting from a joint trial of co-defendants against the expense and inconvenience of separate trials.... Neither a mere allegation that defendant would have a better chance of acquittal in a separate trial, nor a complaint of the ‘spillover effect’ from the evidence that was overwhelming or more damaging against the co-defendant than that against the moving party is sufficient to warrant severance.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n deciding on a motion for severance, the district court has a duty to weigh the prejudice resulting from a joint trial of co-defendants against the expense and inconvenience of separate trials.... Neither a mere allegation that defendant would have a better chance of acquittal in a separate trial, nor a complaint of the ‘spillover effect’ from the evidence that was overwhelming or more damaging against the co-defendant than that against the moving party is sufficient to warrant severance.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the decision to impose appropriate means in restraining, even to the point of shackling, a defendant lies within the informed discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion was clearly abused”
3 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.