United States v. McCullah’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 1136 · 1996
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2014
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Arizona v. Fulminante · Lockett v. Ohio · Blackburn v. Alabama · Lowenfield v. Phelps · Clemons v. Mississippi
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Flores , the defendant attempted to have one of the victims killed on prior occasions before finally succeeding. These prior attempts supported the ‘engaging in conduct intending that the victims be killed’ aggravating factor, which was separate and distinct from the “intentional killing” factor which pertained to the actual murder. Similarly, the other victim was tracked down by the defendant and his henchmen and interrogated by one of the defendant’s accomplices in the defendant’s armed presence. Then the defendant ordered the victim away, but evidently changed his mind and decided to kill him, shooting him numerous times. The jury may have found that the tracking down and the armed interrogation by the accomplice supported the lethal conduct aggravating factor, separate from the actual shooting which supported the intentional killing factor ... Simply put, the defendant in Flores engaged in separate acts which supported different aggravating factors. ****** By contrast, the aggravating factors alleged in this case ... overlapped because they were predicated upon the same acts by McCullah — namely, that McCullah identified the victim and drove him to the ambush site.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“2. [Defendant] intentionally killed the victim, Paula Robinson. Section 3591(a)(2)(A). (Counts One and Five) 3. [Defendant] intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in the death of the victim, Paula Robinson. Section 3591(a)(2)(B). (Counts One and Five) 4. [Defendant] intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person, other than one of the participants in the offense, and the victims, Judy Spray and Paula Robinson, died as a direct result of the act. Section 3591(a)(2)(C). 5. [Defendant] intentionally engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, other than one of the participants in the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life, and Judy Spray and Paula Robinson died as a direct result of the act. Section 3591(a)(2)(D). 5”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“he could be killed unless he told the informant 'what really happened,' ” the court found a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lam v. Kelchner
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.