United States v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 571 · 1987
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), United States v. Baker (2005)
50 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Rideout v. United States · Rubin v. United States · United States v. Feola
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While Castro had an interest in having his statement presented in context, the court had concurrent obligations both to protect the interest of the co-defendant Pozo (Acosta), who could have been implicated by Castro's full statement, and to consider the interests of judicial economy, which are advanced by a joint trial. By suggesting that the government on direct, and Castro on cross-examination, elicit from Officer Figueroa the essential point Castro wanted to present to the jury, i.e., that Castro `in substance' denied ownership of the cocaine, the court reasonably accommodated these competing interests. The gist of Castro's statement was presented without unduly prejudicing either the right of Pozo to avoid being implicated *Page 849 by a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, or the right of Castro to have his conduct and statement presented in context. We cannot conclude that this approach was an abuse of discretion. In any event, any error was harmless. "As a general proposition, an error with respect to admission of evidence will result in reversal of a conviction if it had `substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750 , 776 (1946); see United States v. Teitler , 802 F.2d 606 , 616 (2nd Cir. 1977). However, if the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, and the prejudice resulting from the error is relatively insignificant, the error is likely to have been harmless. See Teitler , 8”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have interpreted Rule 106 to justify the admission of previously excluded portions of partially received documents or statements only when necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place it into context, to ensure a fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion, or to correct a misleading impression that might arise from excluding it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
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.