United States v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 1500 · 1988
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably State v. Ball (1995), United States v. McKinney (1992)
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Berger v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Stirone v. United States · McNally v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for evidence to be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the government must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that a conspiracy existed; (2) that the declarant and the defendant were both members of the conspiracy; and (3) that the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While it is likely that the jury found that the defendants were involved in a scheme to obtain money, it remains possible that the jury found the defendants guilty under the theory struck down in McNally.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With respect to any possible inconsistency in the jury's verdict, the law is clear: '[i]nconsistency in a verdict . . . is not a sufficient reason to set it aside,'”
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.