United States v. Sampol’s Empirical Analysis
636 F.2d 621 · 1980
Citation profile
167 federal appellate · 22 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 326 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Tarantino (1988), United States v. North (1990)
167 federal appellate · 22 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1117 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Blockburger v. United States · Bruton v. United States
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 326 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In such cases when there is a gross disparity in the quantity and venality of the testimony against the respective joint defendants it is fair to inquire ‘whether the jury can reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants in the light of its volume and limited admissibility.’ [Citations.]” ( 636 F.2d 621, 647 .)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a conspirator can be found guilty of a substantive offense based upon the acts of his coconspirator so long as the act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy, was within the scope of the unlawful project, and could be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.”
3 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.