United States v. Benoit’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. Conviction by trial, however, does not automatically preclude a defendant from consideration for such a reduction. In rare situations a defendant may clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct even though he exercises his constitutional right to a trial. This may occur, for example, where a defendant goes to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt (e.g., to make a constitutional challenge to a statute or a challenge to the appliea- bility of a statute to his conduct). In each such instance, however, a determination that a defendant has accepted responsibility will be based primarily upon pre-trial statements and conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Herriman · United States v. Griffith

2. “(1) the defendant attempted to employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct; (2) the defendant believed the child was under the age of 18; (3) the defendant engaged in this behavior for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; (4) the defendant knew or had reason to know that the visual depiction would be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mail or the materials used to attempt to produce the visual depiction were mailed, shipped, or transported, including by computer, in interstate or foreign commerce; and (5) the defendant took a substantial step toward the commission of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. U.S. v. Isabella · United States v. Isabella

3. “It is well-settled that the Fourth Amendment “proscribes] only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.” [U.S. v.] Jacobsen, 466 U.S. [109] at 113-14, 104 S.Ct. 1652 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984)] (quotation omitted). “However, in some cases a search by a private citizen may be transformed into a governmental search implicating the Fourth Amendment if the government coerces, dominates or directs the actions of a private person conducting the search or seizure.” United States v. Poe, 556 F.3d 1113, 1123 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the question before us is whether the search conducted by De-Graffenreid and Kidd could be construed as a governmental search directed by Officer Moore. We have delineated a two-step inquiry to determine whether a search by a private individual constitutes state action: First, we determine whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the [private person’s] intrusive conduct. Second, we consider whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends. Both prongs must be satisfied considering the totality of the circumstances before the seemingly private search may be deemed a government search. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). We have additionally held that “knowledge and acq”

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