United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.2d 728 · 1990
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Darden (1995), United States v. McVeigh (1998)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. Nobles · Michel v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'more serious the potential jury contamination, especially where alleged extrinsic evidence is involved, the heavier the burden to investigate.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mood at trial and the predilections of the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To determine whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to sever, the interest of judicial economy and a policy favoring joint trials in conspiracy cases must be weighed against [the defendant’s] allegations of prejudice. Some degree of prejudice is inherent in every joint trial, but only in the event such prejudice appears to be compelling does severance become warranted. To assess the presence of compelling prejudice, we look to all the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether the court’s instructions sufficiently enabled the jurors to keep separate the evidence as relevant to each defendant.”
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.