United States v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 1345 · 1997
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. Diaz (1999), United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero (2004)
43 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Middle District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1515 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Wayte v. United States · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · United States v. Price · United States v. Stansfield
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In view of the statute’s clear command that the government need not prove any “state of mind” on the part of the defendant with respect to the federal character of the proceeding or officer, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (f), we do not read [element (4) ] as requiring proof that the defendant believed the victim might communicate with law enforcement officers whom, the defendant knew or believed to be federal officers. Rather, we read this sentence as recognizing that what the statute mandates is proof that the officers with whom the defendant believed the victim might communicate would in fact be federal officers.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance ... that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government . . . § 1512(g)(2).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““intent to ... prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense . . . .” 18 U.S. C. § 1512(a)(1)(C).”
4 later decisions 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.