United States v. Mallah’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 971 · 1974
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States v. Elliott (1978), United States v. Tramunti (1975)
144 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.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 845
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Marion
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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a test measuring only overt acts provides no protection against carving one larger conspiracy into smaller separate agreements”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, the alleged two conspiracies occurred in the same general location at the same general time. One involved a large-scale narcotics ring; the known co-conspirators in the other transaction were foot soldiers. We know that a core member of the large-scale operation participated in both transactions, and that the narcotics business is such that it is likely that the foot soldiers were backed up by a larger organization. Moreover, Beverly Jalaba, one of the foot soldiers in Pacelli I, [United States v. Pacelli, 470 F.2d 67 (2 Cir. 1972)], was Pacelli’s mistress; so close to Pacelli, it is also likely that she was close to his organization. We think that these facts are sufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden of going forward, of putting his double jeopardy rights at issue. At this point, the burden shifts to the government to rebut the presumption, which the facts in this case support, that Papadakos, Possas and Jalaba were part of the Pacelli/Sperling organization. We conclude . . . that the government has not rebutted the presumption raised by appellant, that the two conspiracies of which he has been convicted are in fact one conspiracy, and we reverse the conviction below on the conspiracy count.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is one thing to increase a charge from manslaughter to murder, and quite another to charge a defendant, subsequent to a successful appeal, with a second murder.”
2 later decisions 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.