United States v. James’s Empirical Analysis
712 F.3d 79 · 2013
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1958 · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 373
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Washington · Marks v. United States · Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“autopsy report was not testimonial because it was not prepared primarily to create a record for use at a criminal trial”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“have left significant confusion in their wake”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) that the evidence is newly discovered after trial; (2) that facts are alleged from which the court can infer due diligence on the part of the movant to obtain the evidence; (3) that the evidence is material; (4) that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (5) that “the evidence would likely result in an acquittal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.