United States v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Berkemer v. McCarty · Kirby v. Illinois · Oregon v. Mathiason
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Becker wanted Knowles to continue talking so he displayed the [criminal] complaint to induce Knowles into talking, i.e., if Knowles did not cooperate, he would not be leaving. It is precisely this type of coercive conduct by law enforcement personnel that the Fifth Amendment prohibits and for which Miranda warnings are intended as a safeguard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“neither the court nor the defendant should be required to guess concerning the alleged underlying offense that constitutes the `specified unlawful activity.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]ecause the current indictment is ambiguous, Knowles could not rely on the indictment to protect his double jeopardy rights.”
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.