United States v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis
600 F.2d 505 · 1979
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States v. Bright (1980), United States v. Hartley (1982)
71 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on United States v. Beechum · Gray v. United States · Thaggard v. United States · United States v. Knox · Crist v. Cline L R
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Whether a scheme is one conspiracy or several is primarily a question for the jury.' United States v. Michel, 588 F.2d 986 , 995 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825, 100 S.Ct. 47, 62 L.Ed.2d 32 (1979); United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F.2d 1342 , 1348 (5th Cir. 1975). 'A single plan does not become many plans simply because some members were cast in roles more vital that others, or because certain members performed only a single function.' United States v. Bates, 600 F.2d 505 , 509 (5th Cir. 1979)....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(I)t is a misnomer to characterize the testimony concerning the acts and backgrounds of the co-conspirators as 'extraneous offense' evidence. The testimony was not evidence of other crimes committed by (the defendant) himself.... Rather, the testimony was fully admissible evidence of the existence of an ongoing conspiracy as charged in the indictment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidentiary issues bearing on possible prosecutorial misconduct should normally be reserved for trial . . . . The charges of misconduct in this case all concerned alleged efforts by the prosecution to tamper with the testimony of witnesses; they presented precisely the sort of factual questions best reserved for trial. The trial court therefore acted correctly in not conducting a separate evi-dentiary hearing at the pretrial stage.”
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.