United States v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 1001 · 1992
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), State v. Fisher (2003)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Michel v. United States · Raphan v. United States · Houltin v. United States · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are a number of dangers inherent in allowing juror questions: jurors can find themselves removed from their appropriate role as neutral fact-finders; jurors may prematurely evaluate the evidence and adopt a particular position as to the weight of that evidence before considering all the facts; the pace of trial may be delayed; there is a certain awkwardness for lawyers wishing to object to juror-inspired questions; and there is a risk of undermining litigation strategies. In light of jurors’ lack of knowledge of the rules of evidence, a juror question may be improper or prejudicial. When a court declines to ask a question, the questioning juror may feel that her pursuit of truth has been thwarted by rules she does not understand. Concern has also been expressed over a risk that a sense of camaraderie among jurors may lead them to attach more significance to questions propounded by fellow jurors than those posed by counsel.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allowing juror-inspired questions in a criminal case is not prejudicial per se, but is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The dynamics ... are extremely sensitive. Innovations that carry the potential for disrupting those dynamics are risky. Juror participation in the examination of witnesses represents a significant innovation, transferring the jurors’ role from a purely passive one to a partially interactive one. The practice also delays the pace of the trial, creates a certain awkwardness for lawyers wish-. ing to object to juror-inspired questions, and runs a risk of undermining litigation strategies.”
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.