United States v. Escobar de Bright’s Empirical Analysis
742 F.2d 1196 · 1984
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Yarbrough (1988), Duckett v. Godinez (1995)
133 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Sorrells v. United States · United States v. Hasting · Sherman 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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'weak, insufficient, inconsistent or of doubtful credibility.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A defendant is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on his theory of defense, provided that it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Such dangers, however, are non-existent when a person ‘conspires’ only with a government agent. There is no continuing criminal enterprise and ordinarily no inculcation of criminal knowledge and practices. Preventive intervention by law enforcement officers also is not a significant problem in such circumstances. The agent, as part of the ‘conspiracy’ is quite capable of monitoring the situation in order to prevent the completion of the contemplated criminal plan; in short, no cloak of secrecy surrounds any agreement to commit the criminal acts. “Finally [a rule that there can be no indictable conspiracy with a government agent who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy] responds to the same concern that underlies the entrapment defense: the legitimate law enforcement function of crime prevention ‘does not include the manufacturing of crime.’ (Citations omitted.) Allowing a government agent to form a conspiracy with only one other party would create the potential for law enforcement officers to ‘manufacture’ conspiracies when none would exist absent the government’s presence.” Escobar De Bright, 742 F.2d at 1199-1200 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.