Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 396 F.2d 373 - Gladden v. Unsworth

Gladden v. Unsworth’s Empirical Analysis

396 F.2d 373 · 1968

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
12
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

62 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Dempsey v. State (1976), United States v. Kelley (1992)

62 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 states

420196819701980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Townsend v. Sain · Escobedo v. Illinois

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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But, in our opinion, voluntariness is not necessarily established by proving that the confession was spontaneous or by proving the absence of an improper purpose on the part of the questioning officers. If by reason of mental illness, use of drugs, or extreme intoxication, the confession in fact could not be said to be the product of a rational intellect and a free will, to use the test of Townsend v. Sain, it is not admissible and its reception in evidence constitutes a deprivation of due process. “We accordingly hold that, under the circumstances of this case, Unsworth’s conviction, predicated in part on testimony describing incriminating oral statements made by him while he was in a state of gross intoxication, carries with it such a potential for invasion of constitutional rights that it cannot stand unless vindicated by further inquiry.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'the product of a rational intellect and a free will' ... whether [or not] a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure [or] a drug- [alcohol-] induced statement.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The precise constitutional right in question here is not * * * the right to exclude from evidence a confession or admission not voluntarily given. Rather it is the right to exclude from evidence a confession or admission which, upon being challenged as involuntary, has not first been determined by the trial court to be voluntary in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury.””
    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.