United States v. Barroso’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: Let’s turn for a moment to 99 Cr. 1025, which I call the Briar-wood fraud but want to you [sic] understand that’s a conspiracy, and a conspiracy is an agreement. So the charge there is that you agreed to commit securities and wire fraud with other people between March '97 and April '98. Having been fully apprised of that, can you tell me what you did that makes you say you are guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud? What did you do? THE DEFENDANT: I entered into a conspiracy with others between March of '97 and April of '98 to commit securities and wire fraud in connection with four accounts at Briarwood Investments, by causing unauthorized transactions to be executed in these four accounts in Briarwood Investments and known— THE COURT: I am sorry. I am not understanding you. Maybe you ought stand up and read slowly, like everybody else. I am not understanding you. Why don’t you just start that one all over again? MR. LONDON: Say it your own words [sic]. THE COURT: No, I thought it was fine to read. Those, I am sure, are very carefully thought out words between you and your client. I have no problem with that. I just want him to read it slowly and carefully and loudly. THE DEFENDANT: OK. I entered into a conspiracy with others between March of 1997 and April of 1998 to commit securities and wire fraud in connection with four accounts at Briarwood Investments, causing unauthorized transactions to be executed in these four accounts at Briarwoo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Frederick Tropeano, and Marlon Tropeano, David Barroso, Jr.

2. “the defense should [not] have it both ways. They shouldn't be able to argue that there were only two members of the conspiracy, offer only the portion that supports that and not allow the government to offer the portion of the allocution that supports our theory that there were more than one.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States of America v. Frederick Tropeano

3. “must decide as a separate question whether David Barroso was a part of the alleged conspiracy or scheme.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States of America v. Frederick Tropeano