United States v. Jaynes’s Empirical Analysis
75 F.3d 1493 · 1996
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Hardwell (1996), United States of America v. Bountaem Chanthadara (2000)
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 510 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Carnegie v. United States · United States v. Powell · Dunn v. United States · United States v. Gaudin
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] continuing offense is not the same as a scheme or pattern of illegal conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a continuing offense is not the same as a scheme or pattern of illegal conduct.... Separate offenses may be part of a common scheme without being 'continuing' for limitations purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The evidence necessary to support a verdict need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and need not negate all possibilities except guilt. It only has to reasonably support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing a conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, we cannot weigh conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses since that duty is exclusively delegated to the jury. We must accept the jury’s resolution of the evidence as long as it is within the bounds of reason. In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we necessarily resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the government and assume the jury found that evidence credible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.