United States v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.3d 1039 · 2017
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Faretta v. California · Neder v. United States · California v. Trombetta · Arizona v. Youngblood
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.
“United States v. Simpson , 845 F.3d 1039 , 1046 (10th Cir.) (quoting Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 , 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. 140 , 199 L.Ed.2d 188 (2017) ; see Von Moltke , 332 U.S. at 723-24 , 68 S.Ct. 316 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]ecause the government's evidence on intent was not overwhelming, the instructional error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To satisfy this test, a defendant ... need[s] to show that the error is particularly egregious and that failure to notice the error would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
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.