United States v. Pennett’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.2d 293 · 1974
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably United States v. Santiago (1978), United States v. Petersen (1979)
47 federal appellate · 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Kansas District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Krulewitch v. United States · Lutwak v. United States · Jencks v. United States · Grunewald v. United States · Palermo 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hearsay statements of co-conspirators may be admitted against one another whenever the existence of the conspiracy is established by independent evidence. Mares v. United States, 383 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 394 U.S. 963 , 89 S.Ct. 1314 , 22 L.Ed.2d 564 (1969). Under Mares, such statements must be made during the conspiracy in order to be admissible. We followed and expanded this general rule in United States v. Coppola, 479 F.2d 1153 (10th Cir. 1973), wherein we noted that statements of co-conspirators made during the “continuation” of the conspiracy are admissible. See also Green v. United States, 386 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1967). Such statements must, of course, be made in “furtherance” of the conspiracy. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 . 69 S.Ct. 716 , 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949); United States v. Coppola, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But it seems to me that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence entirely apart from the statements by the other three defendants, that the defendant Santiago was in fact associated with this heroin transaction and did, by his conduct, seek to make it succeed. I think the way in which he did that the jury could find was by operating the vehicle which was, in effect, the movable command post for this series of negotiations and inferentially at least, the situs of the heroin. I think that one could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the observed conduct of Santiago is inconsistent with the hypothesis that he was not involved in this transaction.”
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.