United States v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.3d 1343 · 1998
Citation profile
127 federal appellate · 18 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 246 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States v. Diaz (1999), United States v. Singleton (1999)
127 federal appellate · 18 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1954 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 209 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · Kotteakos v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Agurs
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 246 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever ... directly or indirectly, gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court ... authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In exchange for the plea of guilty set out in paragraph 1 and the defendant’s cooperation as set forth in paragraph 3 below, the United States agrees ....) (emphasis added); id. at 2, ¶ 3 ("The defendant agrees, in consideration of the items listed in paragraph 2 above, as follows: a. Defendant agrees to fully cooperate. ... This includes: ... 2. testifying truthfully in federal grand jury proceedings, as necessary; 3. testifying truthfully in federal and state court, as necessary;”). Plainly, all three promises by the government were made in partial consideration for the co-conspirator's testimony. 2 . Like § 201(c)(2), the subornation of perjury statute applies to “[w]hoever,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The bribery portions of 18 U.S.C. § 201 , subsections (b), (c) and (d), require that the thing of value be given or accepted "corruptly” and "with intent to influence” or “in return for” being influenced. The gratuity portions, subsections (f) and (g), require only that the thing of value be given or accepted “otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty,” thus covering instances where the public official would carry out the act or omission whether or not he received the thing of value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.