Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 481 F.3d 259 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

481 F.3d 259 · 2007

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
December 2021
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2021

3 federal appellate ·

100200720102020decided

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. § 924

Relies on Bailey v. United States · United States v. Russell · Smith v. United States · United States of America v. Javier Ceballos-Torres · United States v. Duncan

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

  1. “The applicable rule is that When a defendant questions the authenticity of evidence, the district court must determine whether the government has made a prima facie showing of authenticity. This prima facie showing is that there be substantial evidence from which the jury could infer that the evidence is authentic. Once this showing is made, the evidence should be admitted, and the jury has the ultimate responsibility for deciding the authenticity issue. Any break in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Before the district court, Smith’s counsel never clearly asserted entrapment as a possible defense. Even though Smith asserts that his proffered testimony was relevant to entrapment, he did not make a prima facie showing that would require either the government to prove that it did not entrap the defendant or the district court to offer an instruction on entrapment.”
    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.