United States v. EFF’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.3d 712 · 2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Holmes v. South Carolina · United States v. Cameron · United States v. Pohlot · United States v. Corona · United States v. Levine
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Affirmative defense. — It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of proof. — The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
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.