United States v. Muse’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The United States and the defendant stipulate to the following facts, which the parties agree can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the .375 caliber Glock Semiautomatic Pistol Serial # EWU023US, which was manufactured in Austria, had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and that it is a “firearm” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(3). 2. That Mr. Pratt was convicted of the following crimes: A. On September 12, 1986, the defendant was convicted in Hillsborough County Superior Court of Armed Robbery [under N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 636:1], B. On January 9, 1995, the defendant was convicted in Hillsborough Superior Court of Accomplice to Armed Robbery [under N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 629:1, 636:1]. C. On 21, 1988, the defendant was convicted in Merrimack County Superior Court of Assault by a Prisoner [under N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 642:9]. D. On June 15, 1990, the defendant was convicted in Carroll County Superi- or Court of Burglary [under N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 635:1]. E.On April 5, 1990, the defendant was convicted in Hillsborough County Superior Court of Escape [under N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 642:6], which are all crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The parties further stipulate that the jury should be instructed by the Court that “the defendant agrees he was previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” without further elaboration or explanation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Pratt · United States v. Pratt

2. “Although a fact stipulation may have the effect of providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of the facts that make up an element, a conviction is not valid unless a jury considers the stipulation and returns a guilty verdict based on its finding that the government proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A court may not by-pass the jury and enter its own finding that the element has been established.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Jones · State v. Virgo

3. “[A factual stipulation] is more potent than simply an admission. By so stipulating, a defendant waives the requirement that the government produce evidence (other than the stipulation itself) to establish the facts stipulated beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Clark, 993 F.2d 402, 406 (4th Cir.1993).... ... Because a stipulation induces the government not to offer evidence to prove the facts involved in the stipulation, a defendant may not argue at trial or on appeal that the stipulation is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts or elements to which he has stipulated. See United States v. Reedy, 990 F.2d 167, 169 (4th Cir.1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 202 W. Va. 55 - Matter of Starcher