United States v. Aranda’s Empirical Analysis
963 F.2d 211 · 1992
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Ballew (1994), United States v. Beasley (1996)
53 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc. · Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence of acts committed by the defendant . . . during the time frame of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it . . . is not [evidence] of 'other crimes,' but rather is evidence of the very crime charged”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the evidence of the bad act or other crime is relevant to a material issue raised at trial; (2) the bad act or crime is similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the crime charged; (3) there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the other act or crime; and (4) the potential prejudice of the evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value.”
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.