United States v. Megna’s Empirical Analysis
450 F.2d 511 · 1971
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Duckett v. Godinez (1995), United States v. Rodriguez (1988)
33 federal appellate · 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. § 2
Relies on Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Bird v. United States · Perez v. United States · United States v. Lester · United States v. Campbell
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.
“'all indictments for substantive offenses must be read as if the alternative provided by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 were embodied in the indictment.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nearly fifty years ago the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit laid down the rule that ‘Where the evidence presents a theory of defense, and the court’s attention is particularly directed to it, it is reversible error for the court to refuse to make any charge on such theory.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By the weight of authority it is held that the instructions on the presumption of innocence of the accused, and of the necessity of fastening every necessary element of the crime charged upon the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, are not enough in cases involving the necessary presence of the accused at a particular time and place, when the accused produces testimony that he was elsewhere at the time. If the accused requests an instruction as to the burden of proof on his alibi, an instruction on the subject must be given so as to acquaint the jury with the law that the government’s burden of proof covers the defense of alibi, as well as all other phases of the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the alibi never shifts to the accused who offers it, and if the jury’s consideration of the alibi testimony leaves in the jury’s mind a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the accused, then the government has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.””
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.