Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 601 F.3d 588 - United States v. Becton

United States v. Becton’s Empirical Analysis

601 F.3d 588 · 2010

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
July 2022
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 6 district ·

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Childress · United States v. Dale · United States v. Brown · United States v. Bowie

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This court has used a relatively consistent set of criteria for evaluating the potential prejudice of closing argument errors. We have generally looked to three factors in determining whether improper remarks by the prosecutor sufficiently prejudiced a defendant: the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the affidavit contained false statements; (2) the statements were material to the issue of probable cause; and (3) the false statements were made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) probable cause exists to believe that an individual has committed or is about to commit one of certain enumerated offenses; (2) probable cause exists to believe that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through an interception; (3) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried; and (4) probable cause exists to believe that the communication facility sought to be wiretapped is being used, or is about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offenses.”
    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.