United States v. Cogdell’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 179 · 1988
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2005 · most notably Brogan v. United States (1998), United States v. Prater (1991)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette · Russello v. United States · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · United States v. Bass
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) It must not have been made in pursuit of a claim to a privilege or a claim against the government; (2) It must have been made in response to inquiries initiated by a federal agency or department; (3) It must not have perverted the basic functions entrusted by law to the agency; (4) It must have been made in the context of an investigation rather than in the routine exercise of administrative responsibility; and (5) It must have been made in a situation in which a truthful answer would have incriminated the declarant.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The element of knowledge may be satisfied by inferences drawn from proof that a defendant deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her. A finding beyond a reasonable doubt of a conscious purpose to avoid enlightenment would permit an inference of knowledge. Stated another way, a defendant’s knowledge of a fact may be inferred upon willful blindness to the existence of a fact. It is entirely up to you as to whether you find any deliberate closing of the eyes and inferences to be drawn from any evidence. A showing of negligence is not sufficient to support a finding of willfulness or knowledge. I caution you that the willful blindness charge does not authorize you to find that the defendant acted knowingly because she should have known what was occurring when the property at 763 Sundown Road was being sold, or that in the exercise of hindsight she should have known what was occurring or because she was negligent in failing to recognize what was occurring or even because she was reckless or foolish in failing to recognize what was occurring. Instead, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant purposely and deliberately contrived to avoid learning all of the facts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he statute ... was not intended to compel persons suspected of crimes to assist criminal investigators in establishing their guilt”
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.