United States v. Mejia-Valez’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2023
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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. § 1958
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · United States v. Hale · Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight · Wrenn v. Gould · Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The evidence of prior acts here came from the same witnesses who testified that they hired the defendant to carry out the murder. If the jury found these witnesses to be credible, the defendant would be convicted even if the accomplices were not permitted to testify about defendant's admission of prior homicides. On the other hand, if the jury did not find their testimony to be credible with respect to the crime in issue, there is no reason why it would have credited the testimony of these witnesses with respect to the prior acts. . . . . . . . The testimony that the defendant admitted to other homicides enhanced the credibility of the accomplices only because it provided a plausible answer to the question of why they recruited the defendant to be the triggerman.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wrighter“By its own terms, application of Rule 803(1) has three distinct requirements: i) the statement must describe or explain the event perceived; ii) the declarant must have in fact perceived the event described; and iii) the description must be 'substantially contemporaneous' with the event in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“hearsay ..., even though the declarant is available as a witness,”
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.