United States v. Fredericks’s Empirical Analysis
586 F.2d 470 · 1978
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 22 Cal. 4th 900 - People v. Jenkins (2000), United States v. Manbeck (1984)
48 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Bumper v. North Carolina · Alderman 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The District Court must determine whether the relevant evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, could be accepted by a reasonably-minded jury as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The same test applies whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. All reasonable inferences which tend to support the Government’s case must be accepted. Any conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in the Government’s favor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“even if viewed in the worst possible light, were a far cry from the sort of third-degree physical or psychological coercion that might prompt us to disregard altogether the societal interest in law enforcement by excluding the highly probative testimony of a nondefendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, there is the distinct possibility that the jurors will be captivated by the high degree of relevance such statements often possess and will fail to take into account the increased likelihood that the statements are unreliable. Second, the use of statements derived through shocking and intentional police misconduct offends the fundamental fairness essential to due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.