Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 58 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Larry R. Radtke.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Larry R. Radtke Anchor | green | “need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence so long as the total evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. Walter Pritchard | green | “the test is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 9 |
| 3 | United States v. Walter Pritchard | green | “the test is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 8 |
| 4 | United States v. Charles H. Grier and Isaac Harper | green | “not only is the use of circumstantial evidence permissible, but "circumstantial evidence 'may be the sole support for a conviction.” | 8 |
| 5 | United States v. Lacey Lee Koenig and Lee Graf | green | “because conspiracies are carried out in secret, direct proof of agreement is rare.” | 6 |
| 6 | United States v. Manuel Herrera | green | “a conspiracy is a 'combination or confederation between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, a criminal act.” | 5 |
| 7 | United States v. David Patrick Williams and Charles E. Froschauer | green | “this evidentiary standard includes, in conspiracy cases, circumstantial as well as direct evidence.” | 5 |
| 8 | United States v. Stuart Steven Noble | green | “personally know the individuals involved ... as long as the conspiracy continues and its goal is to achieve a common objective.” | 4 |
| 9 | United States v. Felipe Vega | green | “circumstantial evidence may appropriately be utilized to demonstrate both a conspiracy and the defendant's participation in the conspiracy.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.