United States v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 1569 · 1991
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Adams (Slip Opinion) (2015), State v. Sanders (2001)
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Rideout v. United States · Raphan v. United States · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[t]here is no per se rule requiring an inquiry in every instance of alleged [juror] misconduct.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he prohibition against vouching does not forbid prosecutors from arguing credibility, which may be central to the case; rather, it forbids arguing credibility based on the reputation of the government officer or on evidence not before the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]efendants charged in a conspiracy are ordinarily tried together. We review a denial of a Rule 14 severance motion for abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless the resulting joint trial caused the defendant `compelling prejudice.’”
2 later decisions 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.