United States v. Rockelman’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 418 · 1995
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States of America v. Raymond Richard Stephenson (1999), United States v. Bascope-Zurita (1995)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1966 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bibby v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Jeffers 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We hold that the trial court properly refused the proposed “unanimity” instruction. Other circuits have held that the jury need not be so instructed. We join the majority of circuits which hold that the jury need not unanimously agree on the identities of the five persons who were organized, supervised, or managed by the defendant. We are persuaded by the rationale of those cases that the CCE statute is concerned with the size of the enterprise rather than the specific identity of the subordinates. The focus of the statute’s “five or more other persons” requirement is to “establish[ ] that the organization in which the defendant played a leadership role was sufficiently large to warrant the enhanced punishment provided by the CCE statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rockelman, the defendant, would pay for the property at closing. Id. At the closing, Rockelman paid $16,756 in cash. Id. The property was titled in the name of Rockelman's company — ownership of which was a matter of public record. Id. The court reversed the conviction for money laundering saying that upholding it would turn the money laundering statute into a”
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.