United States v. Odeh’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 93 · 2008
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. El-Mezain (2011), United States v. Farhane (2011)
26 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 1116 · 18 U.S.C. § 1117 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 2155 · 18 U.S.C. § 2332 · 18 U.S.C. § 2332A (§ 60023 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A defendant’s knowing and willing participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from ... her presence at critical stages of the conspiracy that could not be explained by happenstance, or a lack of surprise when discussing the conspiracy with others.” It may also be established by “evidence that the defendant participated in conversations directly related to the substance of the conspiracy[,] possessed items important to the conspiracy,” or engaged in acts “exhibit ing a consciousness of guilt, such as [making] false exculpatory statements.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If it is, the district court must then determine whether the state-secrets privilege applies because: (1) there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose ... matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged, and (2) the privilege is lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.... If the evidence is discoverable but the information is privileged, the court must next decide whether the information is helpful or material to the defense, i.e., useful to counter the government’s case or to bolster a defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone.”
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.