United States v. Keys’s Empirical Analysis
95 F.3d 874 · 1996
Citation profile
56 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Johnson v. United States (1997), United States v. Perez (1997)
56 federal appellate ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Batson v. Kentucky · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen faced with a 'solid wall of circuit authority' endorsing a jury instruction, no objection to that instruction need be registered in the trial court to preserve the point on appeal should that 'solid wall' suddenly crumble in the interim and render the instruction defective.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'simply fails to alert the jurors they must consider' " materiality, as in Keys, the omission is harmless "only if review of the facts found by the jury establishes [beyond a reasonable doubt] that the jury necessarily found the omitted element.”
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.