United States v. Waller’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.3d 430 · 2011
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Griffin v. California · Doyle v. Ohio
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To act with intent means to act knowingly and with the unlawful, specific intent to retaliate against a person for information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal of fense given by that person to a law enforcement officer. Intent ordinarily may not be proved directly, because there is not a way of fathoming or scrutinizing the operation of the human mind. However, you may infer a defendant’s intent from all of the surrounding circumstances. You may also consider any statements made or omitted by a defendant, as well as all other facts and circumstances in evidence which demonstrate the defendant’s state of mind.”
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.