United States v. Katana’s Empirical Analysis
2024
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 46 U.S.C. § 70503
Relies on United States v. Olano · Puckett v. United States · United States v. Cotton · Stirone v. United States · Russell v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“occurs when the government relies at trial on different facts than those alleged in the indictment to prove the same offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“affects the defendant's substantial rights, i.e., the right to have knowledge of the charge sufficient to prepare an effective defense and avoid surprise at trial, and - 40 - government had proceeded to prove at trial a scheme from 2017 to 2020 instead of 2014 to 2020, it would have "add[ed] nothing new to the grand jury's indictment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A constructive amendment occurs when the government's evidence or arguments or the court's jury instructions alter the terms of an indictment such that the defendant is effectively charged with a different offense than the one returned by the grand jury.”
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.