United States v. Pepe’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 632 · 1984
Citation profile
159 federal appellate · 10 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Zannino (1990), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)
159 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 891 · 18 U.S.C. § 892
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard
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 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this un-derrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) a bona fide need for the testimony; (2) the substance of the desired testimony; (3) the exculpatory nature and effect of the desired testimony; and (4) that the co-defendant would indeed have testified at a separate trial.”
3 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.