United States v. Calabro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““Although it is clear that hearsay declarations of a conspirator are admissible against his coconspirators if made in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 617 [ 73 S.Ct. 481 , 97 L.Ed. 593 ] (1953); Chine v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 593 [ 16 S.Ct. 125 , 40 L.Ed. 269 ] (1895), it likewise is clear that there must be independent evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in the conspiracy before such declarations are admissible against him. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 74 [ 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 ] (1942). Moreover, it is well settled in this Circuit that the trial judge must make this preliminary determination. [citations omitted]. To satisfy the threshold test of admissibility, the government must show by ‘a fair preponderance of the evidence independent of the hearsay utterances’ that the accused associated himself with the mutual venture. [citations omitted].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. One 1975 Lincoln Continental

2. “We find no basis for believing that the jury thought that it might convict if it found multiple conspiracies. While it is better practice to instruct the jury that they must acquit if they find multiple conspiracies when only one conspiracy is charged, we hold that the failure to do so here was not reversible error. ( 449 F.2d at 894 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 430 F. Supp. 609 - United States v. Walker

3. “[The defendant’s] entire course of conduct during the conspiracy impels the conclusion that he was intimately acquainted with the details of the mutual venture in selling, concealing, and transporting narcotics. From this, the jury reasonably could have concluded that [he] knew the heroin to have been illegally imported.”

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