United States v. Barcley’s Empirical Analysis
452 F.2d 930 · 1971
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably United States v. Velasquez (1985), United States v. Fulmer (1997)
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 876
Relies on Holland v. United States · Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114 · Watts v. United States · Smith v. Crouse · Boyle v. Landry
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * For you did not get my ok in sending this to the Supreme Court, which is to say that you better be on your Code of Ethics before you force me into an unsuitable position. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to sustain its burden of proof under § 876, the government must present evidence sufficiently strong to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the communication in question conveys a threat of injury. Where a communication contains language which is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one threatening, and the other nonthreatening, the government carries the burden of presenting evidence serving to remove that ambiguity. Absent such proof, the trial court must direct a verdict of acquittal. [Barcley, supra at 933.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Barcley’s letter, much like the communication in Watts , is worded in the rowdy dowdy argot of the streets, but it does not clearly convey a threat of injury. Considering the context in which it was written, the principles enunciated in Watts strongly suggest that the government must offer something more than the equivocal language present here to establish the communication of a threat. In this case, neither Barcley’s attorney nor [the prosecutor] testified that he experienced fear upon reading the letter.[ 11 ]”
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.