Public-domain ¡ open source
OpenJurist
← 662 F.2d 1127 - United States v. Berkowitz

United States v. Berkowitz’s Empirical Analysis

662 F.2d 1127 ¡ 1981

Citation profile

244
cited by 244 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

188 federal appellate ¡ 2 district ¡ 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 244 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Zafiro v. United States (1993), United States v. Casamento (1989)

188 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 14 states

161019811990200020102020decided

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. § 2 ¡ 18 U.S.C. § 3109 ¡ 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Davis v. Alaska ¡ Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory ¡ Pinkerton v. United States ¡ Ker v. State of California ¡ Alford 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 244 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the jury, in order to believe the core of testimony offered on behalf of [one] defendant, must necessarily disbelieve the testimony offered on behalf of his co-defendant.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage ¡ from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Riola ¡ United States v. Alvarado
  2. “suffered compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to afford protection.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage ¡ from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Riola ¡ United States v. Hernandez
  3. “[i]f it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of . . . defendants . . . for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage ¡ from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Varella ¡ United States v. Romanello

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.