U.S. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
919 F.3d 825 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Crawford v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States · Smith v. Phillips · Arizona v. Washington
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requiring the witness to testify at different times, in each capacity; giving a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding the basis of the testimony; ... or having counsel ground the question in either fact or expertise while asking the question”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the trial judge is in the best position to make this determination [regarding juror bias], the inquiry is committed to his discretion, including ample leeway to formulate the questions to be asked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Th[e] trial judge made reasoned judgments [to detect juror bias]. And we are not here to micro-manage those considered choices.”
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.