United States v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.3d 1151 · 1997
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Smith (2006), United States v. Martinez (2005)
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Ornelas v. United States · Berkemer v. McCarty · Bourjaily v. United States · Oregon v. Mathiason · California v. Beheler
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]either the location nor the purpose of the interview is dispositive of whether a suspect is in custody. The fact that the questioning takes place at a police sta tion is not by itself enough to establish custody so long as the individual being interviewed would perceive that his freedom of movement was not constrained to a degree associated with arrest ... The [Supreme] Court has further held that even a clear statement by an officer that the person being questioned is a suspect does not alone determine custody, but is only “one among many factors” that bear on an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to depart ... The Court has held, in fact, that Miranda warnings are not required when a suspect voluntarily accompanies police-to the station, answers questions, and then is allowed to leave.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An individual is `in custody' for Miranda purposes when, under the totality of the circumstances, the `suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“116 Although relevant statements made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy will usually be made by a coconspirator, we should not assume that these two requirements are mutually inclusive, especially where the alleged coconspirator has been imprisoned for his role in the conspiracy. Instead, I would adhere to the principle enunciated in Arce and presume that statements made by the incarcerated declarant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.