United States v. Gambino’s Empirical Analysis
926 F.2d 1355 · 1991
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1992)
58 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3481 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Burks v. United States · United States v. Young · Bourjaily v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The foundation of [this] policy is the right of every defendant to stand or fall with the proof of the charge made against him, not against somebody else.... The defendant ha[s] a right to have his guilt or innocence determined by the evidence presented against him, not by what has happened with regard to a criminal prosecution against someone else.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By eliciting the witness' guilty plea on direct examination, the [G]overnment dampens attacks on credibility, and forecloses any suggestion that it was concealing evidence. Such disclosure [of a guilty plea] is appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in order to rebut defense counsel's persistent attempts on cross-examination to raise an inference that the co-conspirators had not been prosecuted, and that Inadi was being singled out for prosecution.”
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.