United States v. Scull’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 1270 · 2003
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Kimler (2003), Cannon v. Mullin (2004)
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Wainwright v. Witt · Smith v. Phillips · United States v. Russell
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment. For the purposes of determining the sufficiency of the evidence to raise the jury issue, the testimony most favorable to the defendant should be accepted. The defendant must show, either by presenting his own evidence or by pointing to evidence presented by the government in its case-in-chief, his lack of predisposition to commit the crime and government involvement and inducement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]vidence that a government agent solicited, requested, or approached the defendant to engage in criminal conduct, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute inducement. Inducement also will not be shown by evidence that the government agent initiated the contact with the defendant or proposed the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) an error, (2) that is plain, which means clear or obvious under current law, and (3) that affects substantial rights.”
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.