United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 367 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Stewart (2006), Jenkins v. State (2003)
20 federal appellate · 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Bailey v. United States · Remmer v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · McDonald v. Pless · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and direction of the court 'made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“concerning whether there would be evidence of chop shop, prostitution and murder admitted at the [drug conspiracy] trial.”
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.