United States v. Rutkowski’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 594 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Khoury (1990), United States v. Pielago (1998)
21 federal appellate · 1 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. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Wong Sun v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Marchetti 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There was a relatively large amount of cocaine (130 kilograms) contained in a relatively small space. The rear passenger seats had been removed from the airplane, and the cocaine was in unlocked containers easily accessible to anyone sitting in the co-pilot’s seat. According to evidence introduced at trial, Rutkowski is an FAA certified mechanic, and the fuel log indicates that he took an active part in the flight as a member of the air crew. Furthermore, trial testimony established that fueling from jugs in the manner indicated by the fuel log is extremely difficult, if not impossible without help. Reasonable jurors can believe that drug dealers do not invite untainted persons to assist in operating a vessel carrying millions of dollars worth of contraband.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(6) Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements. — Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions; (A) A plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; (B) A plea of nolo contendere; (C) Any statement made in the course of any proceedings under this rule regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or (D) Any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the state which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An appellate court should reverse a conviction because a trial court refused to give a requested jury instruction only if (1) the requested instruction was sub stantially correct; (2) the instruction is not addressed in the charge actually given; and (3) the failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to present an effective defense.”
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.