United States v. Marques’s Empirical Analysis
600 F.2d 742 · 1979
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Whitten (1983), United States v. Bagnariol (1981)
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Ventresca · United States v. Russell · Dunn v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bullock 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sole alleged outside influence, then, was the judge's decision to keep the jury late a couple of nights. This was within the discretion of the trial judge and was entirely proper.”); United States v. Kohne, 358 F.Supp. 1046, 1051 (W.D.Pa.1973) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s delibera tions or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The acts and declarations of coconspirators, done or made in furtherance of the conspiracy, are admissible against a conspirator whose participation has terminated because of arrest.”
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.