United States v. Manzella’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.2d 1263 · 1986
Citation profile
158 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Townsend (1991), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)
158 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Russell · Sherman v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · United States v. DeLuna
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If you find that a particular defendant is guilty of conspiracy as charged in Count I, you may also find that defendant guilty of a substantive offense as charged in any other count of the indictment, provided that you find that the essential elements of that count as defined in these instructions have been established beyond reasonable doubt, and provided that you also find beyond reasonable doubt, "First, that the offense defined in the substantive count was committed pursuant to the conspiracy, and "Second, that the particular defendant was a member of the conspiracy at the time the substantive offense was committed. "Under the conditions just defined a defendant may be found guilty of a substantive count even though he did not participate in the acts constituting the offense as defined in the substantive count. The reason for this is that a coconspirator committing a substantive offense pursuant to a conspiracy is held to be the agent of the other conspirators." 2 E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil and Criminal § 27.17, at 43-44 (3d ed.1977) (instruction on conspirator’s "Guilt of Substantive Offense").”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“hav[ing] the ultimate control over the drugs. He need not have them literally in his hands or on premises that he occupies but he must have the right (not the legal right, but the recognized authority in his criminal milieu) to possess them, as the owner of a safe deposit box has legal possession of the contents even though the bank has actual custody. [ United States v. Manzella, 791 F. 2d 1263, 1266 (7th Cir.1986).]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“on whether it is a crime, on whether the co-conspirator's guilt of this crime was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and on whether it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy in which the defendant participated.”
3 later decisions 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.