United States v. Souffront’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.3d 809 · 2003
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. White (2006), United States v. Edwards (2005)
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment ... or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“direct evidence of the affiant's state of mind or inferential evidence that the affiant had obvious reasons for omitting facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Fuller
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.