United States v. Dimas’s Empirical Analysis
3 F.3d 1015 · 1993
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Boyd (1995), United States v. Brooks (1997)
45 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Zafiro 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a district court should grant a severance under [Fed.R.Crim.P.] 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[L]ater developments in the investigation, if any, are irrelevant because the question is whether the result would have changed if the prosecutors disclosed the evidence at the time [of trial], not whether the outcome would differ if the case were tried today.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though we recognize the experienced district judge’s familiarity with all aspects of this case, the somewhat sparse record leaves us with serious questions about what impact the Brady material might have had on the jury. Because of these lingering doubts we feel compelled to vacate the order denying a new trial and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue.”
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.