United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 1084 · 1990
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Cunningham (2005), United States v. Balzano (1990)
57 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1513 · 18 U.S.C. § 1518 (§ 245 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Tucker · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Energy Cooperative, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Griffin 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is irrelevant that had this been a Guidelines case, the defendants might have received lighter sentences.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in cases where the government's proof has been largely circumstantial, we have said: '[W]hile it is important that we not permit a verdict based solely on the piling of inference upon inference, it is also imperative that we not rend the fabric of evidence and examine each shred in isolation....' [United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706 , 759 (7th Cir.1988) ] (quoting United States v. Redwine, 715 F.2d 315 , 319 (7th Cir.1983) (citations omitted)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The due process clause of the fifth amendment prohibits a court from punishing a defendant for exercising a constitutional right. There is a distinction, however, between punishing a defendant for exercising his right to remain silent and considering the defendant's character in determining an appropriate sentence. .... It is well established that a sentencing judge may consider lack of remorse when imposing a sentence. We recognize that it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish between punishing a defendant for remaining silent and considering a defendant's failure to show remorse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. State
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.