United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 903 · 1992
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Puig-Infante (1994), United States v. McCaskey (1993)
51 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Berger v. United States · Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board
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.
“Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts or carries away and holds for ransom or reward otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by a parent thereof, when: (1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce; shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or life.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The statute] . . . does not require that the defendant move the victim or that the defendant knows that the victim will be moved in interstate commerce.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant must either object to the report or adopt it. Adopting the report ..., however, is very different from adopting a statement under the Jencks Act. The purpose ... is to prevent a defendant from objecting to the report after sentencing. Adopting a report ... amounts to little more than failing to object to the report. To adopt a statement under the Jencks Act, on the other hand, a witness must read the entire statement and formally approve the statement. Otherwise, the witness could be impeached with a statement to which he did not agree. [The subjects of the PSRs] did not formally approve the statements in their presen-tence reports; they only interposed no objection to the reports. Thus, they did not adopt their reports within the meaning of the Jencks Act.”
1 later decision 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.