United States v. Root’s Empirical Analysis
585 F.3d 145 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 6531 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Carnegie v. United States · Spies v. United States · Opper v. United States · United States v. Gaudin
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) avoiding the uncertainty of whether a general verdict of guilty conceals a finding of guilty as to one crime and a finding of not guilty as to another; (2) avoiding the risk that the jurors may not have been unanimous as to any one of the crimes charged; (3) assuring the defendant adequate notice; (4) providing the basis for appropriate sentencing; and (5) protecting against double jeopardy in a subsequent prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a single count of an indictment should not be found impermissibly duplicitous whenever it contains several allegations that could have been stated as separate offenses, but only when the failure to do so risks unfairness to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the allowable unit of prosecution to decide whether the indictment properly charges a violation of the pertinent statute.”
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.