United States v. Copple’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 1182 · 1987
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro (1987), United States v. Davis (1992)
41 federal appellate · 2 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. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Pinkerton v. United States · Lutwak 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government need not prove the specific intent or knowledge of the alleged co-conspirators ... in order to support [defendant’s] conspiracy conviction. It need only show that defendant entered into an agreement with at least one other person, the objective of which was unlawful, and that one of those in agreement committed an overt act in furtherance of the objective. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stavig“To convict [a defendant] of aiding and abetting, the government [must] prove [the defendant] associated [himself] with the illegal activity, ... took part in the activity as something [he] wished to bring about, and by taking part [he] sought to make the activity succeed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the][d]efendants have been charged with aiding and abetting and conspiring with [a bank officer who] held a position sufficient to trigger jurisdiction of the statutes specified in the indictment”
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.