United States v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
860 F.2d 488 · 1988
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada (1989), United States v. Perez-Tosta (1994)
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 19 U.S.C. § 1401 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 955A · 46 U.S.C. § 70505
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Berger v. United States · United States v. Young · United States v. Frady · United States v. Hasting
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done_ It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rather than reversal on appeal, the proper remedy would have been a reprimand or the imposition of sanctions by the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw. (b) It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant. (c) The prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. (d) The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict. (e) It is the responsibility of the court to ensure that final argument to the jury is kept within the proper, accepted bounds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Blanks
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.