United States v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
425 F.2d 55 · 1970
Citation profile
130 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry Brulay (1975), United States v. Byers (1984)
130 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1461 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Katz v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“were we to insist that an exception be taken to save the point for appeal, the unhappy result would be that we would encourage defense counsel to burden district courts with repeated assaults on the then settled principles out of hope that those principles will be later overturned.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The invalidated portion of the presumption was an integral part of the fact-finding process. The use of the presumption affected the integrity of the determination of guilt, and its use was neither secondary in importance nor infrequent in occurrence. The Government’s use of the presumption permitted it to bypass proof of substantive elements of the offense, thus creating a “serious risk that the issue of guilt or innocence may not have been reliably determined.” (Roberts v. Russell, supra, 392 U.S. at 295, 88 S.Ct. at 1922.) The intimacy of the connection between the use of the presumption and the finding of guilt is dramatically evident in a case in which the Government relied upon the presumption alone to prove knowledge of illegal importation. But the presumption is no less inextricably bound to the finding of guilt when it is added to independent evidence of knowledge and the jury is permitted to decide guilt either upon the presumption, or upon the independent evidence, or both.””
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.