United States v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 840 · 1998
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Smith (2005), Mann v. United States (1999)
65 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1006 · 18 U.S.C. § 215 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3293 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 657 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Zafiro v. United States · United States v. Powell · Turner 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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A separate crime is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each count and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately. The case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the crimes charged should not control your verdict as to any other crime or any other defendant. You must give separate considerations to the evidence as to each defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“instructions to consider the evidence as to each defendant separately and individually, and not to consider comments made by counsel as substantive evidence sufficed 'to cure any prejudice caused when co-defendants accuse each other of the crime.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a clear or obvious error, which affected [Gevorgyan's] substantial rights, and which would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings if allowed to stand”
2 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.