United States v. Moralez’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.2d 565 · 1990
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Martinez (1992), Warrick v. State (1992)
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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. § 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 Roviaro v. United States · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · United States v. Ordonez · United States v. Fixen
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ases involving confidential informants fall into several broad categories. At one extreme are the cases where the informant is a mere tipster, and disclosure is not required. At the other extreme are cases such as Roviaro itself where the informant has played a crucial role in the alleged criminal transaction, and disclosure and production of the informant are required to ensure a fair .trial. In addition, there are cases where there is a slight possibility a defendant might benefit from disclosure, but the government has demonstrated a compelling need to protect its informant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Roviaro [v. United States], 353 U.S. 53 [ 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957) ], the Supreme Court held that an informant’s identity must be revealed whenever it would be relevant and helpful to an accused’s defense or essential to a fair determination of a cause. Id. at 60-61 [ 77 S.Ct. at 627-28 ]. Where the government opposes disclosure of the identity of an informant, a trial judge must balance the public’s interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his or her defense. Id. at 62 [ 77 S.Ct. at 628-29 ], Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informant’s testimony, and other relevant factors. Id. In making the requisite showing under the Roviaro standard, the defendant must present more than mere speculation about the possible usefulness of an informant’s testimony. United States v. Zamora, 784 F.2d 1025, 1030 (10th Cir.1986). Disclosure of an informant is not required where the information sought from him or her would merely be cumulative, or where the informant is not a participant in or a witness to the crime charged. United States v. Scafe, 822 F.2d 928, 933 (10th Cir.1987); United States v. Halbert, 668 F.2d 489, 496 (10th Cir.1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“essential to a fair determination of a cause.”
2 later decisions 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.