United States v. Rafael Collazo-Aponte Rafi Rafaelito’s Empirical Analysis
216 F.3d 163 · 2000
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Baltas (2001), United States v. Patrick (2001)
30 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Blockburger v. United States · Payton v. New York · United States v. Mendenhall
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A litigant [seeking to suppress evidence] cannot jump from theory to theory like a bee buzzing from flower to flower.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“restricted from full participation in a limited number of sidebar conferences that occurred during voir dire”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The statutory language of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (e)(1) clearly indicates that a drug-related murder conviction is a separate offense from the predicate drug conspiracy offense.... Significantly, the first sentence of § 848(e)(1) begins ''[i]n addition to the other penalties set forth in this section,” thereby making it clear that Congress intended to permit a defendant to be convicted and sentenced separately for murder under 848(e)(1) and a predicate drug conspiracy punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A). The case law is in accord and we need not give this argument any further consideration. See United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1104-05 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Snow, 48 F.3d 198, 200 (6th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Villarreal, 963 F.2d 725, 728 (5th Cir.1992) ("We are convinced that Congress created a substantive offense in 21 U.S.C. § 848 (e)(1)(B) and that its language, structure, and ... history ... show in the plainest way that Congress intended [it] to be a separate criminal offense which was punishable in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the predicate offenses.'" (quoting Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779, 105 S.Ct. 2407 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 )); cf. United States v. NJB, 104 F.3d 630, 632-33 (4th Cir.1997) (holding conviction for CCE murder, 21 U.S.C. § 848 (e)(1), is a separate offense from a CCE, 21 U.S.C. § 848 (c)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.