United States v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.3d 336 · 2006
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Moore (2011), United States v. Wilson (2010)
32 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with one of three motives: (1) “as consideration for ... anything of pecuniary value” from such an enterprise, (2) “as consideration for a promise ... to pay” something of value from such an enterprise, or (3) “for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven if there were some doubt about § [844(e) ]'s constitutionality outside the District of Columbia,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After counts are joined, subsequent severance [is] controlled by Rule 14. Whereas misjoinder under Rule 8 is determined according to the propriety of joining offenses before trial, severance may be warranted under Rule 14 at all stages of trial because the district court has a continuing duty to sever counts if it finds a risk of prejudice. That Rule 8 and Rule 14 operate differently is made clear by the standards governing appellate review of a district court’s decision under them. Judge Friendly explained: The question[s] of the propriety of joinder under Rule 8 and of refusal to grant relief from prejudicial joinder under Rule 14 are quite different in nature.... The former is a question of law, subject to full appellate review. ... In contrast, the grant of relief under Rule 14 lies within the discretion of the trial judge and refusal to sever counts ... properly joined under Rule 8 will be reversed only if discretion was abused....”
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.