United States v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 1200 · 1996
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States of America v. Mitchell Ray Daugherty (2001), United States v. Munoz (1998)
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · United States v. Halper · Austin 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he magnitude of the prejudicial effect is tested by looking at the prosecutor's remarks in the context of the trial in which they were made and attempting to elucidate their intended effect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, where two or more persons jointly occupy the place where a firearm is found, mere control or dominion of that place is, by itself, insufficient to establish constructive possession. Evidence showing, at least a plausible inference that the defendant had knowledge of and aceess to the weapon is necessary to establish constructive possession.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the evidence seems insufficient to show that Ross possessed the handgun, it is sufficient to show that he constructively possessed the shotgun .... Because Ross jointly occupied the house with his wife, the prosecution must show that Ross had access to and knowledge of the weapons. While there does not seem to be any evidence which shows that Ross had access to or knowledge of the handgun, the fact that the shotgun was found in plain view, leaning against a wall, is sufficient to establish that he had knowledge of and access to the shotgun.”
2 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.