United States v. Peña’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 751 · 1991
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Jaramillo (1995), United States v. Gonzales (1997)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Powell · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Anthony 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence is newly discovered and was unknown to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) the failure to detect the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence if introduced at a new trial would probably produce an acquittal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence 'are disfavored by the courts and therefore are viewed with great caution.' " United States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 751 , 758 (5th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Fowler, 735 F.2d 823 , 830 (5th Cir.1984)). We have established a four-part test, known as the "Berry Rule,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the evidence was newly discovered and unknown to the defendant at the time of the trial; (2) failure to detect the evidence was not a result of lack of due diligence by the defendants; (3) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence will probably produce an acquittal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.