United States v. Luciano Pacheco’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 7 · 1986
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Angiulo (1990), United States v. Batista-Polanco (1991)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 955A
Relies on Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Commissioner v. Engle · Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Figueroa v. United States · Hulsey v. Arkansas
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review with respect to challenges to the sufficiency of the government's evidence is whether, taken as a whole and viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence and all legitimate inferences therefrom would allow a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ince the need to believe one defendant over another will always occur in the face of antagonistic or fingerpointing defenses, this requisite credibility determination cannot be, and is not, the decisive factor. Rather, the need for severance turns on the degree of conflict, and the extent to which the antagonism goes beyond mere fingerpointing into the realm of fundamental disagreement over core and basic facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court has explained that ... given the necessarily close relation of crew members on a small vessel full of narcotics it is reasonable for the jury to conclude that 'conspirators engaged in conduct which by its nature is kept secret from outsiders, would reasonably not allow the presence of innocent bystanders in their midst while conducting a lengthy, illegal operation.' "”
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.