United States v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.3d 566 · 2009
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Warshak (2010), United States v. Herrera-Zuniga (2009)
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Gall v. United States · United States v. Olano · Graham v. Connor · Rita 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to prevail on a Rule 33 motion for a new trial, a defendant must show the following: “(1) the new evidence was discovered after the trial; (2) the evidence could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence; (3) the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence would likely produce acquittal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. It must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether statements made by a prosecutor amount to misconduct and whether such statements render a trial fundamentally unfair are mixed questions of law and fact, which we review de novo.”
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.