United States v. Eppolito’s Empirical Analysis
543 F.3d 25 · 2008
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably United States v. Broxmeyer (2012), United States v. Moore (2011)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Turkette · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Grunewald v. United States · Michel 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must make that determination with the evidence against a particular defendant viewed in a light that is most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government. The jury may reach its verdict based upon inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be viewed in conjunction, not in isolation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Corso testified that at a dinner with Eppolito and Caracappa in mid-February 2005, he told them he was expecting a visit from four Hollywood clients, each of whom was interested in investing $75,000 in Eppolito’s film project, and that his clients wanted to purchase “ ‘designer drugs’ ” (Tr. 1587), specifically ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine. Corso testified that Eppolito responded that “Tony,” his son, could handle it; both Eppolito and Caracappa said that Guido Bravatti, a young associate of Caracappa’s, could handle it. Later that night, Eppolito called Corso to give him Bravatti’s telephone number. On the following evening, Corso had dinner with Tony and Bravatti. Corso told them that his clients wanted an ounce of crystal methamphetamine and six to eight ecstasy pills; Bravatti said there would be no problem. Tony and Bravatti indicated that they wanted to do all they could to facilitate investments by Corso’s clients in Eppolito’s film project. The next day, Tony and Bravatti made a partial delivery at Corso’s office, saying that they had had some difficulty in obtaining what Corso requested. They handed him an envelope containing somewhat less than the requested ounce of crystal methamphetamine, and Corso paid them proportionately. The parties stipulated at trial that that envelope had contained 25.4 grams of 64-percent-pure methamphetamine.”
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.