Fields v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Neder 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For attempted possession, “[t]he government must establish conduct by the defendant that is reasonably adapted to the accomplishment of the crime of possession of the proscribed substance, and the requisite criminal intent.” Seeney [v. United States], 563 A.2d [1081], 1083 [D.C.1989] (emphasis added). The mens rea element requires proof that appellant had the “intent to commit the crime[]” of attempted possession of a controlled substance (in this case, marijuana). Blackledge v. United States, 447 A.2d 46, 48 (D.C.1982). Here, the fact of actual possession was sought to be proven by the officer’s testimony that the green weed substance fell on the floor from appellant’s clothes, and that a plastic bag with a similar substance was found close to appellant in the holding cell. The same evidence would serve to prove attempted possession. The DEA-7 report was offered as proof that what appellant possessed was marijuana. See Thomas, 914 A.2d at 22 .... If the case had been charged and tried for attempted possession, the DEA-7 report similarly would prove that what appellant intended to possess was a controlled substance, marijuana.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The DEA-7 report was offered as proof that what appellant possessed was marijuana. . . . If the case had been charged and tried for attempted possession, the DEA-7 report similarly would prove that what appellant intended to possess was a controlled substance, marijuana.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“would support an inference that he was conscious of guilt for something,” but not necessarily attempted possession. Id. at 868-69 . 50 . The prosecutor argued in his opening statement that the”
1 later decision 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.