United States v. Cope’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 1860 · 18 U.S.C. § 373 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Watts v. United States · Virginia v. Black · United States v. Vonner · United States v. Newsom · United States v. Stewart
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“True or not, however, Cope’s statements were made when he was trying to bolster his credibility with two fellow inmates, one of whom he sought to convince to murder an AUSA for money. To obtain a conviction for solicitation, the government was required to prove by “strongly corroborative” circumstances that Cope intended that another person “engage in contact constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against ... the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 373 (a). In mentioning the canoe incident first to Small-wood and later to Alexander, Cope sought to convince both of them of the seriousness of his interest in having the AUSA murdered. That there was indeed a 1987 murder, as testified to by the investigating detective, was relevant to showing that Cope was not simply making the whole thing up.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Mann v. Jones
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.