United States v. Mathur’s Empirical Analysis
624 F.3d 498 · 2010
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Kyles v. Whitley · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · United States v. Zannino
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence at issue is material and favorable to the accused; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) the defendant was prejudiced by the suppression in that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant's claim of unfair surprise at sentencing is 'severely undermined, if not entirely undone, by his neglect to ask the district court for a continuance to meet the claimed exigency.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a defendant chooses to admit his guilt, Brady concerns subside.”
2 later decisions 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.