United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 740 · 1991
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably State v. JM (2001), United States v. Glover (1994)
16 federal appellate · 3 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. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Watts v. United States · United States v. Howard · United States v. Hickman · United States v. Townsend · United States v. Vincent
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Further it is evident that, to the extent the trial judge’s comments were otherwise objectionable, they were made in the main at the sidebar and therefore out of hearing of the jury. By the court reporter’s characterization of the event, we have no reason to believe that the statements which occurred at the sidebar were actually heard by the jury and therefore its verdict could only have been improperly influenced, if at all, by the relatively brief colloquy which occurred in its presence.... [T]he comments of the trial judge actually made in the presence of the jury did not rise to that element of reversible error, especially since the record seems to have been singularly free of similar incidents elsewhere in the course of trial. What defense counsel would have us believe, however, is that the statements made by the trial judge at the sidebar conference were not only improper but were also, to his client’s prejudice, heard by the jury. In that presumption we may not indulge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. United States v. Day
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.