United States v. Armone’s Empirical Analysis
363 F.2d 385 · 1966
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2008 · most notably Viscardi v. United States (1966), Gordon v. United States (1971)
119 federal appellate · 4 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. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 4245
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas · Yates 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Mr. Jacobs:. .. [Y]our Honor, this case was on on Monday and at that time the government stated it wished Mr. Lewis in court because the situation in this case is a novel situation, Mr. Lewis representing four defendants in a conspiracy case, and I wish the Court to ask Mr. Lewis that if after being in this case now for over a month he knows of any conflict or any reason why he couldn’t represent these four defendants. “ ‘The Court: I assume he doesn’t or he would have brought it to the attention of the Court. “ ‘Mr. Lewis: That’s right; I discussed it with my clients and they have advised me they feel there is no conflict.’ “Viscardi relies upon Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and Campbell v. United States, 352 F.2d 359 (D.C.Cir. 1965). Nothing in Glasser requires the government or the court to take further steps after receiving such an assurance from an officer of the court. In Campbell, where a single attorney was retained by two defendants, the court reversed the conviction of one defendant because the trial judge did not inquire into whether the defendants knowingly accepted the risk of sharing defense counsel. We need not now decide how much of the Campbell case we accept as law in this circuit. We simply hold that the trial judge’s inquiry of counsel as to possible conflict of interest in this case sufficed to protect any rights Viscardi may have had in the matter. The court must be allowed to accept an attorney’s represen”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n overt act is not part of the crime in the sense that the aet alleged must be proved, where another unalleged overt act is proved. sfc % s|c s}s Consequently, we think the substitution of proof of an unalleged for an alleged overt act does not constitute a fatal variance. At most, such a variance justifies a request for continuance because of surprise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] principal reason for the overt act requirement in a conspiracy prosecution is simply to manifest that the conspiracy is at work.”
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.