Rogers v. Richmond’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
689 federal appellate · 152 district · 1,084 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,510 later decisions (148 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
689 federal appellate · 152 district · 1,084 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States Ex Rel. Harold D. Rogers, Relator-Appellant v. Mark S. Richmond (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Rochin v. People of California · Brown v. Allen · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Darr v. Burford
Cited together with Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Denno · Culombe v. Connecticut · Townsend v. Sain · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
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 2,510 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the behavior of the State's law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner's will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined — a question to be answered with complete disregard of whether or not petitioner in fact spoke the truth.”
49 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system — a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state defendant should have the opportunity to have all issues which may be determinative of his guilt tried by a state judge or a state jury under appropriate state procedures which conform to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. * * * [T]he State, too, has a weighty interest in having valid federal constitutional criteria applied in the administration of its criminal law by its courts and juries. To require a federal judge exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction to attempt to combine within himself the proper functions of judge and jury in a state trial — to ask him to approximate the sympathies of the defendant's peers or to make the rulings which the state trial judge might make * * * — is potentially to prejudice state defendants claiming federal rights and to pre-empt functions that belong to state machinery in the administration of state criminal law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cabana v. Bullock · Black v. Beto
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.