United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 759 · 1978
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State v. Sage (1987), United States v. McLernon (1984)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Green v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Pereira 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] jury charge must be considered in its entirety and not on a sentence-by-sentence basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defendants [Valdez] and Yaqui assert that they were victims of entrapment as to the offenses charged in the indictment. Entrapment is a complete defense. Entrapment occurs when the government’s deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of a defendant. Where a person is ready and willing to break the law, the mere fact that government agents provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity, or participate, themselves, in the offense itself, is not entrapment. Unlawful entrapment can only result from the conduct of a governmental agent, or a person acting upon the instructions or direction of any law enforcement officer of the United States. Criminal activity is such that stealth, strategem and undercover agents are necessary weapons in the arsenal of police officers. For example, when the government suspects that a person is engaged in the sale of counterfeit currency, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or decoy to purchase counterfeit currency from such suspected party. Note: The function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals. This function does not include the manufacturing of crime. The burden is upon the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants were not entrapped. To determine whether there has been entrapment a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the ”
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.