United States v. Baresh’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 392 · 1986
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably United States v. Pungitore (1990), United States v. White (1989)
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Dobbert v. Florida · Garrett 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[B]ecause a conspiracy is a continuing crime, a statute increasing the penalty for a conspiracy beginning before the date of enactment but continuing afterwards does not offend the Constitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“after being advised outside of the presence of the jury not to take a particular course of action, counsel immediately proceeded to contemptuously disregard that order. To that extent, counsel’s conduct implies a planned trial tactic to provoke the district judge and leads to the inescapable conclusion that counsel hoped to cause the judge to react in such a manner as to cause error. It would be improper to allow [appellant] to benefit from such a calculated trial ploy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meek v. State“Unquestionably, admonishments to defense counsel are best made outside the jury’s presence. However, a court’s contempt citation to a defense attorney in the jury’s presence does not automatically constitute error. Rather, the conduct of the trial as a whole must be scrutinized to determine whether the defendant was fairly and impartially tried.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meek v. State
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.