Upshaw v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

607 federal appellate · 39 district · 182 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 943 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pierce v. United States · United States v. Harris

2. ““The Mitchell case [United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65 ] at p [age] 68 [64 S.Ct. at page 898] however, reaffirms the McNabb rule that a confession is inadmissible if made during illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, whether or not the ‘confession is the result of torture, physical or psychological * * * > ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pierce v. United States · Williams v. United States

3. “"* * * Within a few minutes of his arrival at the police station, Mitchell admitted guilt, told the officers of various items of stolen property to be found in his home and consented to their going to his home to recover the property. It is these admissions and that property which supported the convictions, and which were deemed by the court below to have been inadmissible. Obviously the circumstances of disclosure by Mitchell are wholly different from those which brought about the disclosures by the McNabbs. Here there was no disclosure induced by illegal detention, no evidence was obtained in violation of any legal rights, but instead the consent to a search of his home, the prompt acknowledgment by an accused of his guilt, and the subsequent rueing apparently of such spontaneous cooperation and concession of guilt. "But the circumstances of legality attending the making of these oral statements are nullified, it is suggested, by what followed. For not until eight days after the statements were made was Mitchell arraigned before a committing magistrate. Undoubtedly his detention during this period was illegal. * * * Illegality is illegality, and officers of the law should deem themselves special guardians of the law. But in any event, the illegality of Mitchell's detention does not retroactively change the circumstances under which he made the disclosures. These we have seen, were not elicited through illegality. Their admission, therefore, would not be use by the Governmen”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Trilling v. United States · State v. Marchetti