United States v. Marcus’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.3d 97 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022
7 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1462 · 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Johnson v. United States · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · United States v. Cotton · Marks 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the evidence is “overwhelming” or “essentially uncontroverted” that the defendant’s relevant pre- and post-enactment conduct is materially indistinguishable, such that a reasonable jury would not have convicted the defendant based solely on pre-enactment conduct, a retrial is unwarranted. In other words, the defendant must meet the low threshold of offering a plausible explanation as to how relevant pre- and post-enactment conduct differed, thereby demonstrating a reasonable possibility that the jury might have convicted him or her based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct. When this requirement is not met, the error does not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever knowingly ... in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person ... knowing that force, fraud, or coercion ... will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act ... shall be punished....” 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (a)(1). 9 . In our prior opinion we held that”
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.