United States v. Edelin’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
18 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The willingness of the defendants to harass and intimidate witnesses, and the willingness of the defendants to interfere with the judicial process led to the decision of this Court to not produce the names of witnesses until the Thursday before they testify in the upcoming trial. The same analysis supports the delay in disclosing impeaching information against those witnesses.”
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.