United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 1067 · 1995
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Delgado (2012), 691 So. 2d 1273 - State v. Green (1997)
41 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 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. Powell · Dunn v. United States · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Jacobson v. United States · In re Disbarment of Sacco
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, or if the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of his case. Accordingly, we restrict our review of his claims to whether his conviction resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Such a miscarriage would exist only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, or if the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)). 8 . The other formulation of “manifest miscarriage of justice” mentioned by the majority— that it is a manifest miscarriage of justice when”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the diligence of the defense in interviewing the witness and procuring his testimony; (2) the probability of obtaining the testimony within a reasonable time; (3) the specificity with which the defense was able to describe the witness’s expected knowledge or testimony; and (4) the degree to which such testimony was expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.