United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 707 · 1989
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Blevins (1992), United States v. Sykes (1992)
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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
Relies on United States v. Wade · Penson v. Ohio · Gilbert v. California · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Mistretta 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the juror begins to match his interrogation skills with the lawyer all of that [impartiality] is lost.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Some would respond to the concerns about juror questions by suggesting that the court could require the questions to be submitted in writing, and the court could then hear and rule on objections outside of the jury's presence. Apart from concerns about the disruption this procedure might cause, the practice of juror questioning raises an even more basic problem than matters of procedure: The fundamental problem with juror questions lies in the gross distortion of the adversary system and the misconception of the role of the jury as a neutral factfinder in the adversary process. Those who doubt the value of the adversary system or who question its continuance will not object to distortion of the jury's role. However, as long as we adhere to an adversary system of justice, the neutrality and objectivity of the juror must be sacrosanct."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ex Parte Malone“"Allowing juror questions disrupts neutrality, because even a seemingly innocuous response to a seemingly innocuous juror question can sway the jury's appraisal of the credibility of the witness, the party, and the case. The factfinder who openly engages in rebuttal or cross-examination, even by means of a neutral question, joins sides prematurely and potentially closes off its receptiveness to further suggestions of a different outcome for the case. While nothing can assure the jury will remain open-minded to the end, keeping the jury out of the advocacy process increases the probability."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ex Parte Malone
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.