United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 249 · 1996
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2019
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Bourjaily v. United States · Jenkins v. Anderson · Fondel v. Ford Motor Co. · LaSalle Bank Lake View v. United States · United States v. Lewis
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statements made during the concealment phase of the conspiracy may also be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Id. In making this determination, courts must be careful to ensure that the statements occurred during an ongoing conspiracy and were made in furtherance of it. Id. A conspiracy is ongoing where “acts of concealment were undertaken to preserve the conspiracy and foil attempts at detection.” Id. Such a case generally exists where the conspiracy is a continuing arrangement with a series of objectives, and concealment is essential to and in furtherance of the survival of its operation. Id. Post-arrest confessions or statements incriminating others by one coconspirator are generally not made in furtherance of a conspiracy. See [United States v.] Alonzo, 991 F.2d [1422,] 1425-26 [(8th Cir.1993)] (cocon-spirator’s in-custody identification of cocaine source not admissible against other conspirators under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the defendant conducted a financial transaction which involved the proceeds of an unlawful activity; (2) that he knew that the property involved in the transaction was proceeds of some form of specified unlawful activity; and (3) that he intended to promote the specified unlawful activity.”
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.