United States v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.2d 601 · 1984
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Ortiz (1986), United States v. Mosley (1992)
33 federal appellate · 2 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 2024
Relies on Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · Kirchberg v. Feenstra · Cohen v. United States · United States v. Smith · United States v. Gonzalez
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... On appeal, Williams complains about the instruction given and argues that it didn’t go far enough and that the instruction on entrapment should have clearly stated, within it own four corners, that the defense of entrapment having been raised, the burden was on the government to prove no entrapment. Such would undoubtedly be the preferable practice. See, e.g., United States v. Cor-rigan, 548 F.2d 879 (10th Cir.1977). As indicated, in Corrigan we reversed because the instructions, taken as a whole, did not adequately inform the jury that the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied to the defendant’s affirmative defense of self-defense. However, in the instant case, we believe that the instructions, taken as a whole, did adequately inform the jury as to the prosecution’s burden of proof on the entrapment issue. See United States v. Gurule, 522 F.2d 20 , 25 (10th Cir.1975)....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hat prompted the defendants to . . . acquire the food stamps is not really relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“at, or below, the poverty level and needed food stamps to help feed their families.”
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.