United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.2d 838 · 1989
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Gordon (1993), United States v. Hicks (1991)
78 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 17 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on United States v. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Gilbert v. California · Gerstein v. Pugh · Kirby v. Illinois
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district judge’s use of a defendant’s statement to aprobation officer in applying the Sentencing Guidelines is markedly unlike the prosecutor’s adversarial use of a defendant’s pretrial statement to a psychiatrist to carry the state’s burden of proof before a jury [as in Estelle]. A federal probation officer is an extension of the court and not an agent of the government. The probation officer does not have an adversarial role in the sentencing proceedings. In interviewing a defendant as part of the presentence investigation, the probation officer serves as a neutral information gatherer for the sentencing judge. The interview of a defendant is but one of many aspects of the presentence investigation conducted by a probation officer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e do not believe that a federal probation officer acts on behalf of the prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no doubt that requiring a defendant to give a handwriting specimen does not violate his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination since the privilege reaches only compulsion of a defendant’s communication. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267 , 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). “A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection.” Id. at 266-67 , 87 S.Ct. at 1953 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 21 , 93 S.Ct. 774, 776 , 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973). Since handwriting exemplars are not testimonial or communicative matters but instead are an “identifying physical characteristic” of the person, Gilbert, 388 U.S. at 266-67 , 87 S.Ct. at 1953 ; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1832 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), evidence of, or comment on the defendant’s refusal to comply with the lawful court order for the handwriting exemplars is distinguishable from evidence of, or commenting on the defendant’s constitutional rights to refuse to testify at trial, or to post-arrest silence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crawley
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.