United States v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 658 · 18 U.S.C. § 666
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Henderson v. Brown · LaSalle Bank Lake View v. United States · Illinois v. Kentucky · United States v. Childress
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At best, the defendant’s psychiatric evidence establishes that he either thought that he was not doing anything wrong or that he was only borrowing the money despite the fact that he purposefully took it. That theory is entirely inadequate. It is well established that “a good faith intent to return embezzled funds does not negate a showing that the defendant acted with the requisite criminal intent to embezzle the funds in the first instance.” See United States v. Busacca, 936 F.2d 232 (6th Cir.1991). Similarly, Richards cannot negate specific intent on the grounds that his mental disorder made him believe that he was either merely borrowing the money or not actually stealing it. It is not pertinent whether he actually knew that he was committing a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
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.