United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 461 · 2002
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Dazey (2005), United States v. Escalante-Reyes (2012)
22 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1513 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Shaw · Chapman v. United States · United States v. Reyna
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'assisted the actual perpetrator of the wire fraud crimes while sharing the requisite criminal intent.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Hansen v. Johns-Man-ville Prods. Corp., 734 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1984) (examining claims of juror misconduct). We have repeatedly held that defense counsel must call any juror inattentiveness to the attention of the court when it is first noticed. See, e.g., United States v. Curry, 471 F.2d 419, 422 (5th Cir.1973) (holding that “[djefense counsel had a duty to call a juror’s inattentiveness to the court’s attention when first noticed. Counsel may not permit juror misconduct or inattentiveness to go unnoticed, thereby sewing a defect into the trial, and later claim its benefit”) (citations omitted); United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that any juror misconduct claims were waived when “defendants’ respective counsel did not mention the point until the jury had retired, and did not urge the court to ascertain whether the juror was actually asleep”). In Rivera’s motion for a new trial, his counsel stated that he had an unobstructed view of the juror and witnessed the juror periodically closing his eyes. Nevertheless, counsel did not raise this issue until after the court dismissed two alternate jurors, the trial had concluded, and the jury entered its verdict. Thus, Rivera has waived his juror misconduct elaims. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivera’s motion for a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ... with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.”
1 later decision 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.