United States v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 320 · 1978
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. McLernon (1984), United States v. Presser (1988)
34 federal appellate · 4 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. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Dutton v. Evans · Lutwak v. United States · Jencks v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not designed to extinguish the normal exercise of discretion by the trial judge where the Act may have been violated by oversight or negligent conduct not amounting to a concious election.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mr. Ervin. If the Government has substantial evidence, from the testimony of other witnesses, to establish the guilt of the defendant of the charge which has been made, the court can permit the Government to proceed on the basis of the testimony of the other witnesses, but the court could deprive the Government of the benefit of the testimony of the witness who is the author of the document which the Government refused to produce; is that correct? Mr. O'Mahoney. That is correct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Supreme Court acted not upon a determination of whether it was error for the trial court to have failed to exclude all of the testimony of the witness, but instead whether the failure to furnish the statement itself caused any actual prejudice to the defense in the context of all the circumstances of the trial.”
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.