United States v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.2d 671 · 1985
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Henry (1989), United States v. Persico (1987)
79 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Nixon · Pinkerton v. United States · Michel v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Bell 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a waiver of [the defendant's] right to object to potentially inadmissible evidence or otherwise suspended the operation of the rules of evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The essential elements which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the defendants or .either of them under Count 2 of the indictment are, first, that the defendants knowingly and intentionally possessed a controlled substance, and second, that the defendants or either of them possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. If the jury finds the defendants or either of them not guilty under this instruction, you should then proceed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused as to the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance. In order to find the defendants or either of them guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants or either of them knowingly and intentionally possessed a controlled substance as charged in the indictment.”
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.