7 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 23 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Waldorf v. Shuta.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Waldorf v. Shuta Anchor | green | “placed before the jury the very same type of information the district court had excluded as inadmissible.” | 5 |
| 2 | Waldorf v. Shuta | green | “determination on the basis of an objective analysis by considering the probable effect of the allegedly prejudicial information on a hypothetical average juror.” | 3 |
| 3 | Waldorf v. Shuta | green | “may have vitiated procedural rulings based on fairness to both sides.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Anthony Disalvo, in No. 93-1442. United States of America v. Robert F. Simone, in No. 93-1463 | green | “not sufficiently prejudicial to constitute a violation of the defendant's sixth amendment rights.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Anthony Disalvo, in No. 93-1442. United States of America v. Robert F. Simone, in No. 93-1463 | green | “and the headline of the may 20 article in the bergen record calling a witness a” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Richard O. Bertoli | green | “the circumstances posed a serious risk that an extraneous and inadmissible newspaper article may have vitiated procedural rulings based on fairness to both sides” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Richard O. Bertoli | green | “the very same type of information the district court had excluded as inadmissible.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.