United States v. Humphreys’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 254 · 1992
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Dale (1993), United States v. Gladney (1995)
52 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Franks v. Delaware · Jones v. United States · Carnegie v. United States · Bibby 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included in the affidavit, and 2) that the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause. The same analysis applies to omissions of fact. The defendant must show: 1) that facts were omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby make, the .affidavit misleading, and 2) that the affidavit, if supplemented by the omitted information, could not support a finding of probable cause. United States v. Humphreys, supra, at 258 n. 2, citing United States v. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719 , 726 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957 , 960 (8th Cir. 1986).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is the defendant’s duty to investigate, to question, and to assert a challenge prior to the return of the verdict. If actual bias or prejudice is revealed an obvious challenge for cause is timely presented. If not, the court may still determine the necessity of taking remedial action, such as the seating of an alternate juror. In an effort to obtain a new trial, it is incumbent upon the defendant to clearly demonstrate that the juror's lack of qualifications presented actual bias or prejudice, affecting the juror’s impartiality and impacting the fairness of the trial. A challenge after the verdict without such a showing comes too late.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“`The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury does not require an absolute bar on felon-jurors.'”
3 later decisions 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.