United States v. Sepulveda’s Empirical Analysis
15 F.3d 1161 · 1993
Citation profile
502 federal appellate · 77 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 781 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably United States v. Baker (2005), State v. Morris (Slip Opinion) (2014)
502 federal appellate · 77 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 22 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 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. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Olano · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · 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 781 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Individual errors, insufficient in themselves to necessitate a new trial, may in the aggregate have a more debilitating effect.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a harmlessness determination demands a panoramic, case-specific inquiry considering, among other things, the centrality of the tainted material, its uniqueness, its prejudicial impact ... and any telltales that furnish clues to the likelihood that the error affected the factfinder's resolution of a material issue.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'To prove a drug conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government is obliged to show that a conspiracy existed and that a particular defendant agreed to participate in it, intending to commit the underlying substantive offense.'”
10 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.