Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 826 F.2d 310 - United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco

United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco’s Empirical Analysis

826 F.2d 310 · 1987

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
19
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

85 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Tarantino (1988), United States v. Bermea (1994)

85 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 19 states

76019871990200020102020decided

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. § 963

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Hoffa v. United States · Olmstead 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]s in the case of the witness who has been promised a reduced sentence, it is up to the jury to evaluate the credibility of the compensated witness.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we hold that the credibility of the compensated witness . . . is for a properly instructed jury to determine.”
    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.