United States v. Skillman’s Empirical Analysis
442 F.2d 542 · 1971
Citation profile
152 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States v. McMillan (1974), United States v. Jackson (1977)
152 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Pinkerton 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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The offense of conspiracy consists of an agreement between the conspirators to commit an offense, attended by an act of one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another, and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views, and change your opinion, if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence, solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times that you are not partisans. You are judges — judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he recorded conversation was not a 'relevant statement' under the meaning of Rule 16. It was introduced not as a part of the government's case-in-chief, but on rebuttal. . . . It was not admitted for its truth, but was admitted solely for the purpose of [impeachment]. . . . There was nothing in the statement which had any bearing on the substantive crimes charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.