United States v. Agueci’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 817 · 1962
Citation profile
350 federal appellate · 7 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 439 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Elliott (1978), United States v. Salameh (1998)
350 federal appellate · 7 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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. § 3481 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Holland v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Caminetti 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 439 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Just as with any other component of a crime, the existence of and dealing with narcotics may be proved by circumstantial evidence; there need be no sample placed before the jury, nor need there be testimony by qualified chemists as long as the evidence furnished ground for inferring that the material in question was narcotics." 310 F.2d 817 , 828.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hile arrest or incarceration may constitute a withdrawal from a conspiracy, it does not follow that in every instance it must,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any event, the test for reversible error, if two conspiracies have been established instead of one, is whether the variance affects substantial rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). The material inquiry is not the existence but the prejudicial effect of the variance. While we beHeve, as we have already stated, that the jury could find there was but one conspiracy, the finding of more than one conspiracy would not re-suit in prejudice to any of the defendants in the case before us. See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 , 82, 55 S.Ct. 629 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). The requirements for sustaming a verdict in which there has been a variance have been met. The several conspiracies, if there had been such, could have been joined in a single indictment or consolidated for a single trial and the conduct of the trial was such that the danger resulting from the admission of evidence not chargeable to any appellant was minimal.””
2 later decisions 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.