United States v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
702 F.2d 351 · 1983
Citation profile
204 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 312 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States v. Nersesian (1987), United States v. Torres (1990)
204 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
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 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Holland 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 312 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he standard for appellate review of an insufficiency claim placed a “very heavy burden” on the appellant. Our inquiry is whether the jury, drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, may fairly and logically have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and construe all permissible inferences in its favor.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'differing levels of culpability and proof are inevitable in any multi-defendant trial and, standing alone, are insufficient grounds for separate trials.'”
5 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.