United States v. Stansfield’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 909 · 1996
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Diaz (1999), United States v. Veal (1998)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 United States v. Olano · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Atkinson · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Bullock 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant killed or attempted to kill a person; (2) the defendant was motivated by a desire to prevent the communication between any person and law enforcement authorities concerning the commission or possible commission of an offense; (3) that offense was actually a federal offense; and (4) the defendant believed that the [victim] might communicate with the federal authorities.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“hinder, . . the communication . . . of information relating to the commission or possible commission,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The evidence reflected that [the witness] had already cooperated several times with state authorities and with [Stansfield’s insurer], Stansfield had knowledge of [the witness’s] past cooperation and was aware that some investigation, though not necessarily a federal one, was underway. Moreover, though it is unclear whether Stansfield was aware of it, the evidence also showed that federal authorities had begun an investigation approximately one month prior to the conduct in questions. Given that Stansfield violated several federal laws and based on the actions he took thereafter, a jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack [on the witness] was motivated, at least in part, by Stansfield’s belief that [the witness] might cooperate with federal authorities.”
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.