United States v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.2d 391 · 1979
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Nersesian (1987), United States v. Salameh (1998)
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 32 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Pinkerton v. United States · Arizona v. Washington
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of a chemical analysis of the substance is not essential to a valid conviction for a narcotic offense. Neither is it necessary that direct evidence be presented to prove the nature of the substance. United States v. Quesada, 512 F.2d 1043, 1045 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 946 , 96 S.Ct. 356 , 46 L.Ed.2d 277 (1975). (Citation omitted.) Just as with any other component of the crime, the existence of and dealing with narcotics may be proved by circumstantial evidence; there need be no sample placed before the jury, nor need there be testimony by qualified chemists as long as the evidence furnished ground for inferring that the material in question was narcotics. United States v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, 828 (2d Cir. 1962) cert. denied 372 U.S. 959 , 83 S.Ct. 1013 , 10 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The controlling question is whether the remarks of the prosecutor invaded the accused's right to a fair trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, as applied in criminal prosecutions, bars the Government from relitigating an issue decided in a defendant’s favor by a valid final judgment. The burden is on the defendant to establish that the issue he seeks to foreclose from litigation in the present prosecution was necessarily decided in his favor by the prior verdict. When, as is usually the ease, the previous acquittal was based on a general verdict, the court must examine the record of [the] prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration. Though the court should avoid making the defendant’s burden overly difficult by straining to postulate hypertechnical and unrealistic grounds on which the jury could conceivably have rested its conclusions, it has been recognized that since it is usually impossible to determine with any precision upon what basis the jury reached a verdict in a criminal case, it is a rare situation in which the collateral estoppel defense will be available to a defendant.”
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.