United States v. Francis’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 546 · 1999
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Barnett (2005), Ruth Ann Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony Wade, Deceased v. T.N. Mehra Dr. Cabrera Dr. Rodriguez, John Jabe, Warden Gerald Hofbauer, Deputy Warden John Fisher, Security Guard Jane Doe, Nurse (1999)
59 federal appellate · 21 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Berger v. United States · United States v. Young · Raffel v. United States · McCarty Ranch Trust v. Craig · Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether the statements tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; 2) whether the statements were isolated or among a series of improper statements; 3) whether the statements were deliberately or accidentally before the jury; and 4) the total strength of the evidence against the accused.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[b]olstering occurs when the prosecutor implies that the witness's testimony is corroborated by evidence known to the government but not known to the jury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor supports the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness's credibility ....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.