United States v. Tipton’s Empirical Analysis
90 F.3d 861 · 1996
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 19 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 204 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Calderon (1997), United States v. White (2005)
83 federal appellate · 19 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3521 (Witness Security Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3566 · 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Olano · Batson v. Kentucky · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gregg v. Georgia
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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The four (n)(l) circumstances ... essentially rephcate the required mental states for constitutional imposition of the death penalty, but in doing so they reflect four distinctly different levels of moral culpability, ranging downward from direct “intentional killing,” (A), to intentionally engaging in conduct with known potential for causing death that did in fact cause it, (D) ... In requiring the jury at sentencing ... to address and make findings respecting these different circumstances — some of which are necessarily impEcit in any guilty verdict on a § 848(e)(1)(A) murder count— § 848(n)(l) provides precisely the constitu-tionaEy required, principled basis for further distinguishing between those murderers thought deserving of death and those not thought to be ... They might weE, for example, guide a discretionary decision to recommend death for one defendant found guilty under Section 848(e) because he ‘intentionally killed,’ i.e., was a direct execu-turner, but not to recommend death for another defendant also found guilty not because he had been the actual executioner of a victim but because he had ‘caused’ or ‘procured’ his intentional IdlEng by another and thereby had intentionaEy engaged in conduct intending that the victim be kiEed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(9) Substantial planning and premeditation.— The defendant committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person or commit an act of terrorism.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“frequent instructions on the need to give each defendant's case individualized consideration sufficed to reduce the risk [of prejudice] to acceptable levels.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.