United States v. Barton’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 66 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Hancock (2006), United States v. Heard (2013)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Crisp v. Rubin · Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health · Colonial Village, Inc. v. Spann · Carolco Television Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. · Carter v. Nesby
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clear and convincing evidence is “that weight of proof which ‘produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts’ of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Affirmative Defense. — It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of Proof. — The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable trier of fact could have failed to find that the defendant's insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gabbert v. State
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.