Sykes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.2d 607 · 1966
Citation profile
114 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Petrozziello (1977), United States v. Brown (1977)
114 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2115
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Wong Sun v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * That which is not visible cannot be ‘plain.’ We are not equipped for divination. Only the proper objection to the offered evidence would have allowed a clear picture in which we might have found error. ‘The prosecution therefore was not challenged about the arrest, showed only such facts as led to the search, was under no necessity of offering evidence in justification and explanation of the entry, and in effect was lulled into an assumed security which the defense would now make false. We, of course, do not know from this record what the government would or could have proved by way of explanation and justification. We do feel that, under the circumstances of this ease, the defense is not now in a position to complain by afterthought.’ Robinson v. United States, 8 Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 618 , 623.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Imagination in re-living the trial is here not sufficient, but must be accompanied by speculation as to what would have appeared had the claim of error been considered. Speculation wastes time and bears ephemeral fruit. For this reason this Court has held that there is no “plain error” where, irrespective of the substantiality of the claimed error, the record does not present the question in enough detail.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Our duty in questioning the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is to take the view of the evidence must favorable to the government, and to question whether the reasonable inferences to be drawn from such evidence are inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.