United States v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis
17 F.3d 538 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 856 - People v. Palmer (2001), United States v. Caronia (2012)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 333 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 351 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on United States v. Powell · Dunn v. United States · United States v. Dotterweich · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Logarusic 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Consistency in' the verdict is not necessary. ... “The most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but that does not show that they, were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt. We interpret the acquittal as no more than their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In [United States v.J Powell, the Supreme Court noted that the jury, though presumed to follow the instructions of the trial court, may make its ultimate decisions “ ‘for impermissible reasons,’ ” [ 469 U.S. 57, 63 , 105 S.Ct. 471, 476 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) ] (quoting Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. [339, 346, 102 S.Ct. 460, 464 , 70 L.Ed.2d 530 (1981)]), such as “mistake, compromise, or lenity,” Powell, 469 U.S. at 65 , 105 S.Ct. at 476 , but its power to do so is “unreviewable.” [citation omitted]. ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ $ The Powell Court rejected as imprudent and unworkable[ ] a rule that would allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent verdicts on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity, but of some error that worked against them. Such an individualized assessment of the reason for the inconsistency would be based either on pure speculation, or would require inquiries into the jury’s deliberations that courts generally will not undertake. 469 U.S. at 66 , 105 S.Ct. at 477 . Thus, the court is not to try to guess which of the inconsistent verdicts is “the one the jury ‘really meant.’ ” Id. at 68 , 105 S.Ct. at 478 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to one count should be independent of the jury's determination that the evidence on another count was insufficient to meet the government's burden of persuasion.”
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.