Clutchette v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 14 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “In a Miranda situation, the only consequences of the accused’s exercising his right to remain silent are that the police stop asking him questions. In a situation involving a prisoner before the disciplinary committee, . the coercive nature of the questioning, while perhaps more subtle than that in Miranda , is also more devastating. The prisoner, warned that anything he says may be used against him in a criminal prosecution, is put to the choice between remaining silent and sacrificing his right to defend himself before the committee, or speaking to the committee and risking incriminating himself in a future prosecution. The trap is unavoidable. Not only does he risk multiple punishment for the same act ... he definitionally prejudices himself in one proceeding by acting in his best interests in the other. * ->:• *x- * •* *x* In any proceeding in which an accused party exercises his right to remain silent, he naturally sacrifices one means of defense. In the normal criminal prosecution, or civil-criminal combination, we are not troubled by this sacrifice, as the defendant is protected by many procedural safeguards, and retains the alternative of defending himself by means of calling and cross-examining witnesses. In a disciplinary proceeding, prisoners are not protected by these same procedural safeguards, i. e., a presumption of innocence with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the state. Furthermore, should the charged prisoner choose to exercise his right”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 351 F. Supp. 787 - Carter v. McGinnis

2. “Although persons convicted of crimes lose many of the rights and privileges of law abiding citizens, it is established by now that they do not lose all of their civil rights, and that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment follow them into the prison and protect them there from unconstitutional administrative action on the part of prison authorities carried out under color of State law, custom, or usage. More specifically, prison authorities are not permitted to inflict upon convicts cruel and unusual punishments for violations of prison rules; they may not discriminate invidiously against a prisoner or class of prisoners; and they may not deny to a prisoner reasonable access to the courts to test the validity of his confinement or to secure judicial protection of his constitutional rights. (Citing cases.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clements v. Turner

3. ““While prisoners may have no vested right to a certain type of confinement or certain privileges, it is unrealistic to argue that the withdrawal of those privileges they do have, or the substitution of more burdensome conditions of confinement would not, under their ‘set of circumstances,’ constitute a ‘grievous loss.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 330 F. Supp. 665 - Klotz v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority