United States v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 256 · 1993
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably United States v. Roberts (1993), United States v. Gomez-Arrellano (1993)
21 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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Smith v. United States · Delaware v. New York · Sanders Confectionery Products Inc. v. Heller Financial, Inc. · Peretz v. United States · United States v. Stewart
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“MR. ABRAHAM:" Yes, Your Honor. I have two. With regards to the Court’s instruction page six, the objection that I have, Judge, is that under 924-C-l, the Court has set out the elements for the offense. And not only that, the Court tells the jury and describes for the jury the word “use” and the word “firearm,” And although the statute says use pr carry, there is no definition of carry. And what I have done, Judge, is, I have .submitted to the Court a statement concerning the carrying of a firearm in relation to the commission of a drug-trafficking crime. And I have said that the term “carries” means possession with the ability to exercise dominion and control of such proximity to make it available for use. “Carry” does not mean mere transportation of a firearm in a vehicle. The Court has described and defined for the jury all of the terms of the statute with the exception of carry, and we feel that carry should be defined for the jury. And then I have submitted to the Court the defendant’s requested instruction concerning the New Mexico law with regards to the carrying of a deadly weapon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order for the defendant to be found guilty of the charge in Count III, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant, Timothy Vemell Scisum, transported J.N., a person under the age 18, from the State of Washington to the State of Utah; Second, that the defendant did so with the intent that J.N. engage in prostitution; and Third, that J.N. was under the age of 18 years at the time.”
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.