United States v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.3d 791 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Bermea · United States v. Lindell · United States v. Fischel · United States v. Alaniz
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e review preserved challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, but we are 'highly deferential to the verdict.' " United States v. Scott , 892 F.3d 791 , 796 (5th Cir. 2018). "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices to be made in support of the jury's verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the substantive offense occurred and that the defendant (1) associated with the criminal venture; (2) purposefully participated in the crime; and (3) sought by his actions for it to succeed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“sufficient to support a conviction if 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
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.