United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 1559 · 1985
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably United States v. Calderon (1997), United States v. Ramirez-Chilel (2002)
53 federal appellate · 4 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. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Berger v. United States · Smith v. Phillips · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Anthony 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not required because the government’s case includes testimony by “an array of scoundrels, liars and brigands.” The jury was free to disbelieve the [ ] government witnesses whose faults were exhaustively catalogued by the attorney[s].... Furthermore, the trial judge fully instructed the jury on the degree of suspicion they should entertain when considering the testimony of accomplices who testify with immunity. By bringing back a verdict of guilty, however, the jury found that the testimony of [the witnesses] was credible. Because the testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, we must accept this determination by the jury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There can be no doubt that [witness] Weiss was a drug dealer and an outlaw. He had been involved in several drug trafficking schemes. He entered into a plea agreement with the government on the present charges. The charge that Weiss perjured himself or that the defense evidence undermined Weiss' testimony, while bearing on Weiss' credibility are not factors in determining incredibility as a matter of law and were certainly matters wholly within the province of the jury. For testimony of a government witness to be incredible as a matter of law, it must be 'unbelievable on its face.' United States v. Cravero , 530 F.2d 666 , 670 (5th Cir. 1976). Further, 'the fact that [the witness] has consistently lied in the past, engaged in various criminal activities, thought that his testimony would benefit him, and showed elements of mental instability does not make his testimony incredible.' Id. In United States v. Garner , 581 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1978), the court underlined the stringent rule that 'for the testimony to be considered incredible, "it must be unbelievable on its *Page 663 face", i.e., testimony as to "facts that [the witness] physically could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature." ' Id. at 485 . (quoting Cravero , 530 F.2d at 670 ). "Under this test, Weiss' testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. A judgment of acquittal 'is not required because the government's case includes testimony by "an array of scoundrel”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the face of extensive impeachment of Weiss on cross examination concerning Weiss' bad acts and bad character the jury chose to believe him. There the matter ends."”
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.