Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 F.2d 62 - United States v. Massiah

United States v. Massiah’s Empirical Analysis

307 F.2d 62 · 1962

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

104 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Massiah v. United States (1964), Maine v. Moulton (1985)

104 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

670196219701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 19 U.S.C. § 482 · 26 U.S.C. § 4701 · 26 U.S.C. § 7607

Relies on McNabb v. United States · Screws v. United States · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Spano v. People of the State of New York · Marshall v. United States

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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'apply to indirect and surreptitious interrogations as well as those conducted in the jailhouse. . . . '”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “In a criminal case, the defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on all the elements that must be proved to establish the crime charged. United States v. Gillilan, 288 F.2d 796 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Apex Distributing Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 821, 82 S.Ct. 38, 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961); Kelley v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 275 F.2d 10 (1960). 32”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Assuming without deciding that it would be improper for a prosecutor to interview a criminal defendant under indictment in the absence of his retained counsel, ... such a prohibition would not require that government investigatory agencies also refrain from any contact with a criminal defendant not in custody simply because he had retained counsel.”
    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.