United States v. Stitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant is charged in Count 3 of the indictment with conducting a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of federal law. It is a crime for anyone to engage in what is called a continuing criminal enterprise involving controlled substances. For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proven each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant violated the Controlled Substances Act as charged in Count 1 or 2 of the indictment. Second, that the violations were part of a continuing series of violations, which means at least three violations of the Controlled Substances Act. These violations must be connected together as a series of related or ongoing activities as distinguished from isolated and disconnected acts. You must unanimously agree on which of these underlying violations has been proven. Third, that the defendant obtained substantial income or resources from the series of violations. Fourth, that the defendant undertook such violations in concert with five or more persons with respect to whom the defendant occupied a position of organizer, supervisor, or manager. The five other persons need not have acted at the same time or in concert with each other. You need not unanimously agree on the identity of any other persons acting in conceit with the defendant as long as each of you finds that there was five or more such persons. (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Garcia

2. “the Government points to a different portion of the statute, which requires a defendant to have supervised “five or more other persons.” 21 U.S.C. § 848 (c)(2)(A). The Government says that no one claims that the jury must unanimously agree about the identity of those five other persons. Its adds that the jury may also disagree about the brute facts that make up other statutory elements such as the “substantial income” that the defendant must derive from the enterprise, § 848(c)(2)(B), or the defendant’s role in the criminal organization, § 848(c)(2)(A). Assuming, without deciding, that there is no unanimity requirement with respect to these other provisions, we nonetheless find them significantly different from the provision before us. They differ in respect to language, breadth, tradition, and the other factors we have discussed. These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the statute requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual “violation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Cuervo

3. “[f]or each of the three murders during the CCE for which Stitt was charged, the jury found all of the statutory aggravating factors, and forty of the forty-six non-statutory aggravating factors, with which it was presented. Among the non-statutory aggravating factors found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt were assault on a uniformed police officer, threatening to kill several deputy sheriffs and a uniformed police officer, participation in forcible home invasions, participation in a non-charged intentional killing to settle a drug related dispute, and ordering co-defendants to shoot a bouncer at a night club.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 369 F. Supp. 2d 679 - Stitt v. United States