United States v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 348 · 1977
Citation profile
148 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Kenny (1981), United States v. Durrive (1990)
148 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 3231 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Nye & Nissen v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt a connection of a defendant with the conspiracy, even though the connection is slight, is sufficient to convict him with knowing participation in the conspiracy.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is sometimes said, as the Government here states in its brief, that `"[O]nce the existence of a conspiracy is clearly established, slight evidence may be sufficient to connect a defendant with it",' quoting from United States v. Knight, 416 F.2d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.1969), which in turn quotes from earlier cases. We confess to having repeatedly proliferated, although we did not initiate, this statement, a principle that has become part of the cant in conspiracy cases. The litany is highly misleading if taken out of the context of the particular cases in which it was made ... So taken, and construed to imply that participation in a criminal conspiracy may be proved by evidence that would be inadequate to prove the commission of some other criminal act, the so-called `slight evidence rule' would vitiate the Government's ever-present burden of proof, the requirement that guilt must be proved to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, the rule that all doubts must be resolved, and equally plausible inferences drawn, in favor of defendants, and other traditional foundations of our nation's system of criminal justice." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McLaughlin v. State““In such instances, given the clandestine character of such projects, slight additional evidence suffices to base an inference that one who had been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be a participant was as well a knowing participant.” At p. 357, fn. 21.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.