Case Citator › United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss

United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
256 F.3d 971
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
2002–2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Prentiss was overruled in part on the standard for reviewing an indictment omission first challenged on appeal. The Supreme Court in United States v. Cotton applied plain error review to a forfeited challenge, displacing Prentiss's harmless error approach in that setting; United States v. Sinks later identified Cotton's effect on Prentiss.
More on how this was screened

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Haggerty also rejected Prentiss's allocation of the initial burden concerning a defendant's Indian status under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Prentiss's holding that Indian and non-Indian status are elements under that statute continues to be cited. All 30 flagged citations have been read; the two confirmed federal treatments are listed below. Two state courts' choices about their own law are noted separately.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • For an indictment omission first challenged on appeal, the Supreme Court applied plain error review instead of Prentiss's harmless error review.

    United States v. Cotton · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Freed from the view that indictment omissions deprive a court of jurisdiction, we proceed to apply the plain-error test of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to respondents’ forfeited claim.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Fifth Circuit assigned the defendant the initial burden of pleading and producing evidence of Indian status when the victim is Indian, contrary to Prentiss's rule that the government bears those burdens.

    United States v. Haggerty · Fifth Circuit · filed

    By contrast, the Tenth Circuit held that the entire burden is on the Government: it must allege the defendant’s (and victim’s) Indian/non-Indian status and bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial. Prentiss, 256 F.3d at 975, 980. ... In sum, with respect to crimes prosecuted via § 1152, settled and reconcilable Supreme Court doctrine, as well as principles of statutory construction, demonstrate that, when the victim is Indian, the defendant’s status as Indian is an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of pleading and production, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining with the Government.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Ricco Devon Prentiss and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace