United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 697 · 1993
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Brown (1995), United States v. Eckhardt (2006)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Alderman v. United States · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'To prove aiding and abetting, the government must demonstrate that a substantive offense was committed, that the defendant associated himself with the criminal venture, and that he committed some act which furthered the crime.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f the trial court.erroneously defers ruling on the motion for acquittal and the defendant presents evidence, the appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence will only consider the evidence presented in the government’s case-in-chief. ... Even though this limited review has the effect of undermining the waiver rule by excluding from appellate review all evidence presented by the defendant, application of any other rule would penalize a defendant for a trial court’s refusal to issue a ruling at the time clearly required by our previous cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... “the decision of a codefendant to testify and produce witnesses is not subject to the defendant’s control ... nor is such testimony within the government’s power to command in a joint trial.” Consequently, there is no reason to hold a defendant responsible for testimony over which he has no control.”
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.