United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
936 F.2d 1508 · 1991
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), State v. Campbell (2000)
70 federal appellate · 4 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2114 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Bell v. Wolfish · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[C]rimes [... ] may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence....” United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385 , 1390 (7th Cir.1991). Circumstantial evidence is not less probative than direct evidence, and, in some cases is even more reliable. United States v. Grier, 866 F.2d 908 , 923 (7th Cir.1989). “If the government proves its case by circumstantial evidence, it need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence so long as the total evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... The trier of fact is free to choose among various reasonable constructions of the evidence!”] United States v. Radtke, 799 F.2d 298 , 302 (7th Cir.1986).[ ]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The view that the prosecution’s case must answer all questions and remove all doubts ... of course, is not the law because that would be impossible; the proof need only satisfy reasonable doubt. Indeed, [jjuries are allowed to draw upon their own experience in life as well as their common sense in reaching their verdict- While [cjommon sense is no substitute for evidence, ... common sense should be used to evaluate what reasonably may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“defer to reasonable inferences drawn by the jury and the weight it gave to the evidence. Likewise, we leave the credibility of witnesses solely to the jury's evaluation, absent extraordinary circumstances....”
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.