United States v. Amuso’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 1251 · 1994
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Thai (1994), United States v. Wong (1994)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Carnegie v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Lord Electric Co. 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence and that determination will not be overturned unless it is arbitrary or irrational.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“balance the defendant's interest in conducting meaningful voir dire and in maintaining the presumption of innocence, against the jury member's interest in remaining free from real or threatened violence and the public interest in having the jury render a fair and impartial verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The requisite factual predicate ensures that the evidence is probative in a legal sense and protects the defendant against the possibility of the jury drawing unsupported inferences from otherwise innocuous behavior.”
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.