United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.3d 403 · 1997
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably United States v. Dent (1998), United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez (2013)
27 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on United States v. Wexler · The United States v. Shirl F. Kapp, Ronald Klinger, Robert Lewis, Robert Miller and Paul Briggs. Appeal of Paul Briggs · United States v. Cooper · United States v. Kates
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knew that he was somehow involved in an illicit activity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We apply a particularly deferential standard of review when deciding whether a jury verdict rests on legally sufficient evidence. “It is not for us to weigh the evidence or to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Rather, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and will sustain the verdict if “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Thus, “a claim of insufficiency of the evidence places a very heavy burden on an appellant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven in situations where the defendant knew that he was engaged in illicit activity, and knew that some form of contraband was involved in the scheme in which he was participating, the government is obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the particular illegal objective contemplated by the conspiracy.”
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.