United States v. Caplinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate ·

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A sentencing court must “carefully distinguish between those arms-length commercial relationships where trust is created by the defendant’s personality or the victim’s credulity” and those “where a ‘fiduciary or personal trust relationship exists’ with [the victim], and the defendant takes advantage of the relationship to perpetrate or conceal the offense.” Only the latter circumstances justify the enhancement. At bottom, § 3B1.3’s critical term—“position of public or private trust”—is a “term of art, appropriating some of the aspects of the legal concept of a trustee or fiduciary.” In other words, application of the enhancement “requires more than a mere showing that the victim had confidence in the defendant.” Something more akin to a fiduciary function is required.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 80 F. App'x 847 - United States v. Smith · 529 F. Supp. 2d 616 - United States v. Mauzy

2. “Definition of “Public or Private Trust”. “Public or private trust” refers to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference). Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. For this adjustment to apply, the position of public or private trust must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense (e.g., by making the detection of the offense-or the defendant’s responsibility for the offense more difficult). This adjustment, for example, applies in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination. This adjustment does not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the above-described factors.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 529 F. Supp. 2d 616 - United States v. Mauzy

3. ““[pjublic or private trust” refers to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion.... For this enhancement to apply, the position of trust must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense.... This adjustment for example, would apply in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stone