Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 578 - United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 578 · 1982

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), United States v. DeLuna (1985)

86 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

6601982199020002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama · Rideout v. United States · Santoni 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The general test is whether there was “one overall agreement” to perform various functions to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy. A conspirator need not know all of the other conspirators or be aware of all the details of the conspiracy, so long as the evidence is sufficient to show knowing contribution to the furtherance of the conspiracy.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the participants in separate but jointly tried conspiracies should at least be afforded the protection of explicit limiting instructions. And, when such instructions have not been given, this Court on appeal should give heightened scrutiny to the defendant’s claim that the jury erroneously “transfer[red] guilt from one to another and [found] the defendants guilty of an overall conspiracy.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “supervisory powers over the trial of criminal cases ... [by requiring] the prosecutor to discharge his [or her] duties in a fair, even, and constitutional manner, and thus ensure that no potential juror is denied the privilege of serving upon a jury solely because of his [or her] race.”
    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.