United States v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 895 · 1990
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Townsend (1991), United States v. Garrett (1990)
38 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Young · Pinkerton v. United States · Washington v. Texas
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o determine whether a conspiracy has been subdivided arbitrarily, resulting in multiple indictments for a single illegal agreement, courts [ ] will look to both the indictments and the evidence and consider such factors as whether the conspiracies involve the same time period, alleged co-conspirators and places, overt acts, and whether the two conspiracies depend on each other for success. Where several of these factors are present, the conclusion follows that the alleged illegal combinations are not separate and distinct offenses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court held that where cumulative punishment under two statutes is specifically authorized, regardless of whether these two statutes create the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, ‘the prosecutor may seek and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial.’ Hunter, 459 U.S. at 369 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 . Thus in a case where Congress specifically authorizes cumulative punishment, whether the two statutes ‘flunk’ the Blockburger test is irrelevant. Cf. United States v. Molina-Uribe, 853 F.2d 1193, 1208 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1022 , 109 S.Ct. 1145 , 103 L.Ed.2d 205 (1989) (Congress specifically authorized cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 , 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1); therefore, under Hunter , defendant’s conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) do not violate the double jeopardy clause regardless of the result under Blockburger). Because we determine later in the opinion that Congress specifically authorized cumulative punishment in this situation, we need not decide whether the conspiracy and the firearm offense alleged in the indictment are the same under Blockburger .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a ma-chinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years.”
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.