Jackson v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.3d 658 · 2003
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Conner v. McBride (2004), Pole v. Randolph (2009)
29 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona · Moran v. Burbine · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`well outside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Miranda thus declared that an accused has a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). A defendant may waive effectuation of the rights articulated in Miranda “provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . “When a Miranda waiver is challenged, two distinct questions are presented: whether the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as a matter of fact, and whether it was involuntary as a matter of law.” Henderson v. DeTella, 97 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir.1996) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the detective may have failed to follow state law by not allowing [the defendant] to contact the public defender's office and mischaracterized the provisions of the law, review of a habeas petition by a federal court is limited to consideration of violations of federal law or the United States Constitution. Neither Miranda nor any other provision of federal law requires a public defender to be immediately available to a suspect during interrogation. Thus, to the extent [the defendant's] petition alleges violations of protections guaranteed under state law that are more generous than those required under federal law, we may not enforce these state law provisions through habeas relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Maclaren
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.