United States v. Apicelli’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.3d 75 · 2016
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Zannino · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · United States v. MacDonald
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“- 33 - whether the defendant can raise a plausible theory of innocence: if the record as a whole justifies a judgment of conviction, it need not rule out other hypotheses more congenial to a finding of innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[c]onstructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object either directly or through others.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we do not 'demand that the government disprove every hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence.'”
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.