United States v. Singer’s Empirical Analysis
732 F.2d 631 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably United States v. DeLuna (1985), United States v. Helmel (1985)
27 federal appellate · 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. § 3481 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Mendenhall · Griffin v. California · United States v. Hasting · Roberts v. Louisiana
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An out-of-court declaration of a cocon-spirator is admissible against a defendant if (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the defendant and the declarant were members of the conspiracy; and (3) the declaration was made during the course and in ■ furtherance of the conspiracy. Where the defendant asserts that no conspiracy existed at the time the challenged statements were made, the government must show by a “preponderance of independent evidence” that a conspiracy existed. This standard provides that a coconspirator’s statements are admissible “if on the independent evidence the district court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the statement was made during the course ... of an illegal association to which the declarant and the defendant were parties.” While the evidence must be independent, i.e., exclusive of the challenged statements, it may be circumstantial[.] The district court’s determination will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the evidence must be independent, i.e. exclusive of the challenged statements, ... it may be circumstantial.... The district court's determination will not be reversed unless [it is] clearly erroneous.”
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.