Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 824 F.2d 21 - United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

824 F.2d 21 · 1987

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998), United States v. Schoolcraft (1989)

56 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

4401987199020002010decided

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. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 849 (§ 409 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Hamling v. United States · United States v. Turkette · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Garrett v. United States

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he second sentence of section 1201(a), which constitutes the whole of the Armed Career Criminal provision is evidently a continuation of the preceding sentence, and refers thereto. The first sentence of section 1202(a) ... lists the five classes of persons for whom it is a crime to receive, transport or possess firearms: (1) felons; (2) dishonorable dischargees; (3) mental incompetents; (4) renounced citizens; and (5) illegal aliens. The second sentence specifies one of the preceding classes of persons for different treatment. It does not stand on its own, but as an explanation of the preceding provision. Also, the inclusion of the Armed Career Criminal Act into the same paragraph as the previously enacted 1202(a)(1), with no division into separate numbers or letters suggests treatment of the contents as a single offense.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(e)(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, such person shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g), and such person shall not be eligible for parole with respect to the sentence imposed under this subsection.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a sentencing factor into an 'element' of some hypothetical 'offense.' " Id. 19 Moreover, the primary rationale for requiring sentencing factors to be submitted to a jury--the necessity for accurate factfinding--does not apply in the instant case. Prior convictions are highly verifiable matters of record which need not be subject to jury inquiry. Because defendants had received the totality of constitutional protections due in the prior proceedings, no additional factfinding is necessary. 20 Id. at 1326. We agree. 21 Not only does McMillan offer appellant no succor but one final observation also militates against making the three predicate felonies an element to be proved at trial. Such a holding "would require the government to place evidence of a defendant's three prior felony convictions before the jury in any proceeding under the ACCA. The inherently prejudicial nature of this kind of evidence is well known.”
    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.