United States v. Schiro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “agree unanimously on the ‘types of racketeering activity’ that conspirators agreed to commit.” See United States v. Schiro, 679 F.3d 521, 534 (7th Cir.2012) (citations omitted). That court hypothesized: If you joined the Outfit, you agreed to commit or assist in committing an open-ended range of crimes, and it ought to be enough that the jury was unanimous that you indeed agreed that you would commit whatever crimes within that range you were assigned. Another way to put this — a way that preserves continuity with the cases that require that the jury be instructed that it must agree on the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Cervantes

2. “Specific unanimity instructions ... are necessary only when there is a significant risk that the jury would return a guilty verdict even if there were less than unanimity with regard to one or more elements of the crime. There was not a significant risk here, given the weight of the evidence of both elements (if they are indeed elements and not means).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hollnagel

3. “679 F.3d 521, 531 (7th Cir. 2012). 21 No. 2018AP942-CR lawyers about his discussions with her . . . , for they might have suggested that he question her further, albeit outside their presence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Robert Daris Spencer