United States v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 113 · 1986
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Petzoldt v. Commissioner (1989), Carter v. District of Columbia (1986)
75 federal appellate · 11 district ·
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. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 2601 · 28 U.S.C. § 291
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Burks v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida · United States v. Atkinson · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he critical determination [has been] ... whether a jury could reasonably compartmentalize the evidence introduced against each individual defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“First, mere proximity to contraband is not enough to carry a case of constructive possession to the jury. United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535, 549 (D.C.Cir.1980); United States v. Whitfield, ... [ 629 F.2d 136 (D.C.Cir.1980) ] at 143; United States v. Holland, supra, 445 F.2d at 702-03 ; United States v. Bethea, 442 F.2d 790, 793 (D.C.Cir.1971). Second, mere knowledge of the presence of contraband does not constitute constructive possession. See United States v. Pardo, supra, 636 F.2d at 549 . Nor is mere friendship probative of constructive possession. See United States v. Whitfield, supra, 629 F.2d at 143 (mere friendship between driver and passenger in a car, combined with proximity to narcotics, did not create an inference of constructive possession of the narcotics). See also United States v. Holland, supra, 445 F.2d at 703 (fact that defendant was found in close proximity to the contraband in question and in an apartment belonging to someone with whom the defendant was having a love affair did not create an inference of constructive possession.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In determining whether an error had such a substantial effect this court will look to three factors. If (1) the case is not close, (2) the issue not central, or (3) effective steps were taken to mitigate the effects of the error, the error is harmless.”
2 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.