United States v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
17 F.3d 865 · 1994
Citation profile
56 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Frost (1997), United States v. Prince (2000)
56 federal appellate ·
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Smith v. Phillips · Remmer v. United States · Bibby v. United States · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“derived from specified unlawful activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must credit every inference that could have been drawn in the government's favor.” Id. 4 . The transcript of the conversation does not appear in the Joint Appendix. It appears only in the government's brief at 8-11. However, Wall does not object to the government's transcription of the tape as found at pages 8-11 of the government’s brief. 5 . In his rebuttal, the AUSA played the tape, pausing it on several occasions and making arguments between each pause. The district court thought the AUSA’s presentation was calculated and that the AUSA had purposely waited until rebuttal to comment on the tape. J.A. at 271. However, the district court also acknowledged that had Wall's attorney not commented on the tape in his closing, the court would not have allowed the AUSA to comment on it in his rebuttal. J.A. at 269-270. 6 . In his closing argument defendant’s counsel said "Mr. Mekaru [the AUSA] did not mention the tape. But [he] has another chance to talk with you, and I don’t.... And I anticipate that in rebuttal, when I cannot respond, perhaps, Mr. Mekaru is going to talk about the tape. And I want to talk about the tape.”
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.