Adams v. United States, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Adams v. United States, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1995 · …the decision to grant immunity is reserved to the discretion of the executive branch. ⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2005 · …even if evidence could convince the jury to disregard ... testimony ..., the other evidence in the case was more than sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. ⚠ not in text
363 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 33 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Leary (ded, 2005-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Leary (3×)
D. Del. · 2005 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
even if evidence could convince the jury to disregard ... testimony ..., the other evidence in the case was more than sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Roy Hamilton (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the decision to grant immunity is reserved to the discretion of the executive branch.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Hamilton
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the decision to grant immunity is reserved to the discretion of the executive branch.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Suarez
Ohio Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Butler No. CA2003-06-152, 2004-Ohio-2300, ¶ 10 , citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 336, 370 (1985). {¶ 13} We note that the failure to file a motion to suppress does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. King
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Butler No. CA2003-06-152, 2004-Ohio-2300, ¶ 10 , citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 336, 370 (1985). 1.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Anthony Disalvo, in No. 93-1442. United States of America v. Robert F. Simone, in No. 93-1463
3rd Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Ct. 336, 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frederick v. Payne
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Sarda-Villa, 760 F.2d 1232 , 1234 n. 1 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1109 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 *1066 (1985); United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1206 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1105 , 105 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed.2d 773 (1985); United States v. Arnott, 704 F.2d 322, 326 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 948 , 104 S.Ct. 364 , 78 L.Ed.2d 325 (1983); United States v. Romero, 692 F.2d 699, 705 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Perez, 648 F.2d 219, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055 , 10…
discussed Cited "see" Robert David Figueroa v. Audrey P. Blackburn
3rd Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966 (6th Cir.) (“[A]ny statements made by the Supreme Court about judges of courts having only limited or inferior jurisdiction were dicta”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 351 , 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985); see also Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir.) (opining that the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on immunity for judges of courts of inferior or limited jurisdiction have been “circumspect”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Figueroa v. Blackburn (2×)
D.N.J. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 351 , 88 L.Ed.2d 320 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Ramos (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1108-09 (3d Cir.) (explaining that possession of weapons, even though they could “suggest a picture of violence to the jury,” “had probative value as evidence of the large scale of the [narcotics] conspiracy and the type of protection the conspirators felt they needed to protect their operation”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); accord United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1152 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 915 , 111 S.Ct. 2009, 2010 , 114 L.Ed.2d 98 (1991).
examined Cited "see" Robinson v. United States (6×)
D.C. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
Under the statutory framework, the difference between heroin and cocaine is material only as to an applicable penalty. 591 A.2d at 234 (emphasis added; footnote omitted); accord, United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1116-17 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985) (count of indictment sufficient although it did not identify specific drug).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Gene Francis Newby and Raynaldo Barber. Gene Francis Newby (Appellant in No. 92-5711). Raynaldo Barber (Appellant in No. 92-5712) (6×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Jesus Martinez (3×)
10th Cir. · 1991 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1109 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
examined Cited "see" Pryba Et Al. v. United States (4×)
SCOTUS · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Adams v. United States, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985) (dissenting opinion).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Skelton (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 906 , 106 S.Ct. 275 , 88 L.Ed.2d 236 , 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
cited Cited "see" Mwonyonyi v. Gieszl
6th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 965-66 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). 9 Likewise, Mwonyonyi does not have a claim against defendants Jasmin, Eiden, and Montgomery.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Skelton (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 906 , 106 S.Ct. 275 , 88 L.Ed.2d 236 , 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Clarence Washington v. Shelby County, Tennessee, Joseph B. McCarte Betty Jones
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985); Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013 (2d Cir.1983) (a court reporter is entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken pursuant to a judge's orders).
cited Cited "see" R. John Cross v. Richard Winningham John Taylor, Judge, City of Chattanooga, Defendants
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 965-66 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Harris (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1115-1116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
cited Cited "see" Robert E. Mahlerwein v. Henry Bruewer Robert R. Walton, Sr. Robert D. Wright 50 John Does 50 Jane Does
6th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985); Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013 (2d Cir.1983).
examined Cited "see" Anne M. LOGUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1106 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); Gaines v. Amalgamated Ins.
cited Cited "see" Thomas Belill v. Robert J. Hummel, Individually and as 81st Judicial District Judge, Defendant
6th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985).
examined Cited "see" United States v. State of New Jersey Violent Crimes Compensation Board (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1106 (3d Cir.1985) (review of interpretation and application of legal precepts is plenary), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985). 2 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Gibbs, Stephen A/K/A \Jake\". Appeal of Stephen Gibbs" (4×)
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. Equitable Bank, N.A. (2×)
D. Del. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THINK FINANCE, INC.
E.D. Pa. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.) cert. denied 474 U.S. 971 (1985); Think Fin.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Laura Callahan v. Louis E. Simmons, Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Wayne County, and Kathy Vogt
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). 12 In this case, Judge Simmons clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Louis Gatto, Sr., A/K/A Streaky, Louis Gatto, Sr., in 91-5949 v. Alan Grecco, A/K/A Alan Wolshonak, Alan Grecco, in 91-5950 (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); United States v. Qamar, 671 F.2d 732 (2d Cir.1982); Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969); C.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Thomas C. Ramseur v. Howard C. Beyer, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, Robert Del Tufo, New Jersey Attorney General (6×)
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Greer, 483 U.S. at 766 , 107 S.Ct. at 3109 (determining whether "remarks, in the context of the entire trial, were sufficiently prejudicial to violate respondent's due process rights") (quoting Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 639 , 94 S.Ct. at 1869 ); see also United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1111 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985) (examining the "context of the entire trial").
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Riggi, John M., in 90-5974. United States of America v. Timpani, Salvatore, in 90-5975 (6×)
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985), Stick v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984); Virgin Islands v. Blyden, 626 F.2d 310, 313 (3d Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tyrone Adams
v.
United States
85-5046.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 4, 1985.
474 U.S. 971
White.
Cited by 101 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #36,783 of 633,719
Citer courts: Third Circuit (4) · D. Delaware (3)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White, with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

This case presents the issue of the agreement necessary to support a conviction for so-called RICO conspiracy. For his part in a large-scale narcotics distribution scheme, petitioner Adams was convicted of both the substantive RICO offense defined by 18[*972] U. S. C. § 1962(c)* and conspiracy to commit this offense. Petitioner requested a jury instruction that he could not be found guilty on the conspiracy count unless the evidence showed that he had personally agreed to commit two acts of racketeering activity. The District Judge refused this instruction. In affirming petitioner’s RICO conspiracy conviction, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, to be convicted of conspiracy to violate § 1962(c), a defendant need only agree to the commission of two predicate acts of racketeering activity, and need not agree to personally commit those acts. 759 F. 2d 1099, 1116 (1985).

The Courts of Appeals disagree as to the proper interpretation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962(d), the RICO conspiracy statute. Some require, as the predicate for conviction under § 1962(d) of conspiracy to violate § 1962(c), an agreement to personally commit two acts of racketeering activity. See, e. g., United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F. 2d 913, 921 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Rabito v. United States, 469 U. S. 831 (1984); United States v. Winter, 663 F. 2d 1120, 1136 (CA1 1981), cert. denied, 460 U. S. 1011 (1983). Other Courts of Appeals agree with the Third Circuit that § 1962(d) also makes unlawful an agreement that another violate § 1962(c) by committing two acts of racketeering activity. See, e. g., United States v. Carter, 721 F. 2d 1514, 1529-1531 (CA11), cert. denied sub nom. Morris v. United States, 469 U. S. 819 (1984).

Surprisingly, even the Government’s interpretation of the RICO conspiracy statute has not been wholly consistent. In Winter, supra, the Government conceded that a count under § 1962(d) of conspiracy to violate § 1962(c) requires proof that the defendant “agreed to commit personally two or more predicate crimes constituting a pattern of racketeering activity.” 663 F. 2d, at 1136.[*973] In other cases, including this one, the Government has argued for the interpretation of § 1962(d) adopted by the Third Circuit.

“The legislative history [of the RICO statute] clearly demonstrates that [it] was intended to provide new weapons of unprecedented scope for an assault upon organized crime and its economic roots.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 26 (1983). If the Third Circuit’s interpretation of § 1962(d) is correct, Congress’ intent is being frustrated in those circuits which adhere to the narrower view of RICO conspiracy. If the Third Circuit’s interpretation is incorrect, defendants are being exposed to conviction for behavior Congress did not intend to reach under § 1962(d). I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals.

In writing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. S. C. §1961 et seq., Congress defined three new substantive offenses, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1962(a), (b), (c), and also made it unlawful to conspire to commit these substantive offenses, 18 U. S. C. § 1962(d). Title 18 U. S. C. § 1962(c), the relevant substantive offense in this ease, provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”

Title 18 U. S. C. § 1961(5) provides that the term “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, a term which in turn is defined at 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1).