United States v. Chagra’s Empirical Analysis
669 F.2d 241 · 1982
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Skilling v. United States (2010), United States v. Gallo (1985)
125 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 10 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963 · 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 5 U.S.C. § 5332 (Federal Salary Act of 1967)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Blockburger v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · Chambers v. Mississippi · Roviaro 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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'prejudicial, inflammatory publicity about [a] case so saturated the community from which [the defendant's] jury was drawn as to render it virtually impossible to obtain an impartial jury.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, an appellant can establish both that pretrial publicity about his ease raised “a significant possibility of prejudice,” United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190 , 196 (5th Cir.1978), and that the voir dire procedure followed by the district court in his case failed to provide a “ ‘reasonable assurance that prejudice would be discovered if present.’ ” United States v. Hawkins, supra, 658 F.2d [279] at 283 [5th Cir.1981] (citations omitted). But, “[b]ecause the obligation to impanel an impartial jury lies in the first instance with the trial judge, and because he must rely largely on his immediate perceptions, federal judges have been accorded ample discretion in determining how best to conduct the voir dire.” Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 , 188, 101 S.Ct. 1629 , 1634, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981) (plurality opinion). See also United States v. Gerald, 624 F.2d 1291 , 1296 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920 , 101 S.Ct. 1369 , 67 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981). Therefore, the district court’s decision to employ a particular procedure will not be lightly overturned. United States v. Hawkins, supra, 658 F.2d at 283 (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he language, structure, and legislative history of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse, Prevention and Control Act of 1970, however, show in the plainest way that Congress intended the CCE provision to be a separate criminal offense which was punishable in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the predicate offenses.”
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.