Jackson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defense counsel moved to suppress ‘any and all confessions and admissions' written or oral obtained by the United States since the date of his arrest and presentation to a committing magistrate.’ As grounds for the motion, appellant claimed that the confessions and admissions were elicited from him ‘in voluntarily’ in violation of the Fifth Amendment and of the appellant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. [ 337 F.2d at 138 ] “Obviously neither Escobedo nor Massiah can be read as barring use of this appellant’s confession. Many, learned in the law, deeply believe that no accused should be convicted out of his own mouth. But the Supreme Court has never announced any such proposition — not even where the accused had no attorney and had received no Rule 5 ‘judicial caution.’ United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 70 , 64 S.Ct. 896 , 88 L.Ed. 1140 (1944). We said as much ourselves only a month ago in Ramey v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 355 , 336 F.2d 743 (1964), cert. denied [ 379 U.S. 840 ], 85 S.Ct. 79 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 47 ] (1964) and see United States v. Carignan, 342 U.S. 36 , 72 S.Ct. 97 , 96 L.Ed. 48 (1951) where Rule 5 advice had been imparted. If there were a rule that a confession may not be received if made by an accused without counsel, that would be the end of this case — and of scores like it. “We conclude that no rule of law required the exclusion of this appellant’s confession, voluntarily made, after he had been warned by the F.B.I., the police and th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cephus v. United States · State v. Miranda

2. ““And it is of no significance that appellant had not requested counsel before making his confession. In Lee v. United States, 322 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1963), in which the use at trial of a confession obtained from the accused before he had had opportunity to consult with counsel was held violative of due process, the court stated: ‘The record does not show whether Lee requested counsel or not at the time his interrogators appeared or before they opened his cell door. * * * “But it is settled that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.” Carnley v. Cochran, 1962, 369 U.S. 506 , 513, 82 S.Ct. 884 , 889, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 . Nor can there be a presumption of waiver of counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 [ 146 A.L.R. 357 ], 332 F.2d at 777. 3 ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Cephus v. United States

3. ““[T]hat no rule of law required the exclusion of this appellant’s confession, voluntarily made, after he had been warned by the F.B.I., the police and the United States Commissioner acting pursuant to Rule 40 (b). He had not requested that counsel be appointed; he had retained no lawyer; that one was not then appointed for him denied him no right; and as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession by an accused who has no lawyer, under circumstances such as appear on the record before us.” (Footnotes omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. United States