Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis
322 U.S. 143 · 1944
Citation profile
327 federal appellate · 56 district · 467 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,245 later decisions (163 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
327 federal appellate · 56 district · 467 state decisions — followed in 45 states
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 McNabb v. United States · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Bram v. United States · Burdeau v. McDowell
Cited together with Chambers v. Florida · Haley v. Ohio · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brown v. State of Mississippi · Malinski v. People of State of New York
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 1,245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so inherently coercive that its very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of mental freedom by a lone suspect against whom its full coercive force is brought to bear.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Constitution of the United States stands as a bar against the conviction of any individual in an American court by means of a coerced confession.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In reaching our conclusion as to the validity of Ash-craft’s confession we do not resolve any of the disputed questions of fact relating to the details of what transpired within the confession chamber of the jail or whether Ash-craft actually did confess. Such disputes, we may say, are an inescapable consequence of secret inquisitorial practices. And always evidence concerning the inner details of secret inquisitions is weighted against an accused, particularly where, as here, he is charged with a brutal crime, or where, as in many other cases, his supposed offense bears relation to an unpopular economic, political, or religious cause.””
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.