United States v. Cheek’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.3d 136 · 1996
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Collins (2005), United States v. Basham (2009)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Koon v. United States · Wainwright v. Witt · Remmer v. United States · Patton v. Yount
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, “[t]he party who is attacking the verdict bears the initial burden of introducing competent evidence that the extrajudicial communications or contacts were more than innocuous interventions.” Second, upon satisfaction of this “minimal standard ..., the [presumption of prejudice] is triggered automatically.” And, “[t]he burden then shifts to the prevailing party to prove that there exists no ‘reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was influenced by an improper communication.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“modified abuse of discretion standard giving the appellate court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ny private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.