United States v. Monzon’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 338 · 1989
Citation profile
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Briscoe (1990), United States v. Smith (1993)
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Rhode Island v. Innis · Huddleston v. United States · Ohio v. Kentucky · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg · Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n cases involving specific intent crimes, intent is automatically in issue, regardless of whether the Defendant has made intent an issue in the case”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The intent exception in Evid.R. 404(b) will be available when a defendant goes beyond merely denying the charged culpability and affirmatively presents a claim of particular contrary intent. When a defendant alleges in trial a particular contrary intent, whether in opening statement, by cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or by presentation of his own case-in-chief, the , State may respond by offering evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to the extent genuinely relevant to prove the defendant's intent at the time of the charged offense. The trial court must then determine whether to admit or exclude such evidence depending upon whether 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Evid. R. 408."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena v. State · Fisher v. State“First, the declarant must testify at trial and must be subject to cross-examination. Second, the prior statement must be consistent with the declarant’s trial testimony. Third, the statement must be offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication. Finally, the statement must have been made before the declarant had a motive to fabricate.”
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.