United States v. Simmsâs Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ¡ 3 district ¡ 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions â most recently April 2023 ¡ most notably United States v. Martinez (1985), United States v. Kuzniar (1989)
10 federal appellate ¡ 3 district ¡ 3 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 â not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 ¡ 42 U.S.C. § 1973I (§ 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Glasser v. United States ¡ Kotteakos v. United States ¡ Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory ¡ Pinkerton v. United States ¡ Iannelli v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each â the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
âA motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence must be distinguished from a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29. The two motions may be combined, but they are governed by very different standards. On a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court is required to approach the evidence from a standpoint most favorable to the government, and to assume the truth of the evidence offered by the prosecution. If on' this basis there is substantial evidence justifying an inference of guilt, the motion for acquittal must be denied. On a motion for new trial, however, the power of the court is much broader. It may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. If the court reaches the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted, the verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted.â
1 later decision quote this exact passage ¡ from the majoritye.g. State v. ChavezâThere is no incongruity or inconsistency in requiring the Court to submit the issues to the jury if there is substantial evidence to support a verdict of guilty, and at the same time in empowering it to set the verdict aside if it is deemed contrary to the weight of the evidence. In directing a judgment of acquittal, the Court makes a final disposition of the case. On the other hand, in setting the verdict aside the Court merely grants a new trial and submits the issues for determination by another jury. It is appropriate that in the latter instance, the Court should have wide discretion in the interest of justice.â
1 later decision quote this exact passage ¡ from the majorityâ[t]he government's case depends upon inferences upon inferences drawn from uncorroborated testimony that ... is subject to questions of credibility.â
1 later decision quote this exact passage ¡ from the majority
How this case has been treated â 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.