United States v. Sarantos’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.2d 877 · 1972
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Jewell (1976), United States v. Bernstein (1976)
45 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Leary v. United States · Grunewald v. United States · Toussie v. United States · Romano 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although appellant may not have been specifically aware of what his client’s plans for departure were, the jury could have found from the evidence that appellant acted with reckless disregard of whether the statements made were true and with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See United States v. Simon, 425 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 1006 , 90 S.Ct. 1235 , 25 L.Ed.2d 420 (1970); Bentel v. United States, 13 F.2d 327 , 329 (2d Cir.) cert, denied sub nom. Amos v. United States, 273 U.S. 713 , 47 S.Ct. 109 , 71 L.Ed. 854 (1926).” 427 F.2d at 91 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We stand by our decision in Abrams. Its purpose in cases such as this was to prevent an individual like Sarantos from circumventing criminal sanctions merely by deliberately closing his eyes to the obvious risk that he is engaging in unlawful conduct. Our ruling in Abrams was intended to foreclose this possible loophole, not to create a new crime as defendant suggests. Compare Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 , 263, 72 S.Ct. 240 , 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952). Construing ‘knowingly’ in a criminal statute to include wilful blindness to the existence of a fact is no radical concept in the law.” 455 F.2d at 881 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We see no reason to take such drastic action. The phrases “reckless disregard of whether the statements made were true” and “conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth” mean essentially the same thing. . . . Therefore, any difference in meaning that might possibly result from the substitution of “or” for “and” would surely constitute harmless error. While we prefer the use of the connective “and” because we think the repetition better impresses on the jurors’ minds the importance of finding a deliberate disregard of the facts, we do not think our preference requires a new trial.”
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.