United States v. McLain’s Empirical Analysis
823 F.2d 1457 · 1987
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Rivera (1990), United States v. Pungitore (1990)
86 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 894 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Smith v. Phillips · Holloway v. Arkansas
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In most occasions, the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea will substantially affect the defendant's right to a fair trial in that 'the jury may regard the issue of the remaining defendant's guilt as settled and that the trial is a mere formality.' United States v. Griffin , 778 F.2d 707 , 711 (11th Cir. 1985)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The Judge became increasingly agitated, about the pace at which the trial was proceeding, when it became clear, shortly after the trial commenced, that the time allotment of eight weeks was an insufficient estimate of the trial time. The judge constantly reminded the attorney’s to pick up the pace and had the courtroom clerk clock the attorneys and periodically announced the time that had passed for each attorney. [Appellate courts regularly “clock” attorneys in proceedings before them.] 2. When the trial did not speed up satisfactorily, the trial judge “carried out her threat” of extended session and commenced trial at 7:30 a.m. and ended at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. The trial court followed this schedule from December 3,1984, until January 23, 1985. [(This was a little less than two months out of the four month trial). The appellate court found that the four day week, nine and a half hour days (including lunch and other recesses) to be an “excruciating trial schedule”, which reduced the effectiveness of the jury and had a serious effect on the attorneys’ ability to stay alert and provide adequate representation for their clients.] 3. The reduction of the jury’s effectiveness was evident from the following: a) the jury became restless and inattentive; b) the judge allowed the jury to stand during breaks in the testimony; c) eventually the jurors were allowed to stand during the attorney’s examinations; d) the marshals were instructed to observe the jury to “prev”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.