United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 627 · 1980
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Thevis (1982), United States v. Kenny (1981)
33 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Dutton v. Evans · United States v. Price · Motes v. United States · In re Quarles · United States v. Duncan
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“steps to show that the conspirator's disassociation from the conspiracy is sufficient.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general rule is that it is the judgment, not the verdict, that is the “conviction.” United States v. Klein, 5 Cir.. [sic] 1977, 560 F.2d 1236, 1240 . However, we and other circuits have held that, when a conviction of felony is used to impeach (F.R.Ev. 609), a verdict of conviction is just as relevant as a judgment of conviction. Such a verdict may be so used before judgment upon it is entered. United States v. Canaday, 9 Cir., 1972, 466 F.2d 1191, 1192 ; United States v. Duncan, 4 Cir., 1979, 598 F.2d 839, 864-865 ; United States v. Klein, supra, 560 F.2d at 1239-1241 ; United States v. Rose, 8 Cir., 1975, 526 F.2d 745, 747 . If a judgment has been entered on the verdict and an appeal has been taken, the conviction can still be used to impeach, even though the judgment is not final. F.R.Ev. 609(e); United States v. Allen, 9 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 1361, 1363 . There is no similar provision in the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding the pendency of a motion under F.R.Crim.P. 29 or other similar motions, but we think that the result should be the same, United States v. Klein, supra, 560 F.2d at 1240 , and we so hold. When a conviction is the subject of such a pending motion, that fact, like the pendency of an appeal, can be shown to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Keener
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.