United States v. Sherwood’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.3d 402 · 1996
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. John (2010), United States v. Nelson (1998)
48 federal appellate · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Koon v. United States · Bailey v. United States · United States v. Lopez · Williams v. United States
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant need only demonstrate one of two different types of prejudice in support of a motion to transfer venue: presumed or actual. Prejudice is presumed when the record demonstrates that the community where the trial was held was saturated with prejudicial and inflammatory media publicity about the crime. Prejudice is rarely presumed because “saturation” de fines conditions found only in extreme situations. To establish actual prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that the jurors exhibited actual partiality or hostility that could not be laid aside. [5]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and respecting the jury's ability to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, and draw inferences, a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n determining whether a remand is required where the sentence was imposed as a possible result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, the court of appeals must determine whether a district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not relied upon the invalid factor or factors.”
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.