United States v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 128 · 1968
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1992 · most notably Oregon v. Elstad (1985), Commonwealth v. Haas (1977)
17 federal appellate · 5 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE RIGHTS? 'Yeh' "DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS? 'No' "HAVING THESE RIGHTS IN MIND, DO YOU WISH TO TALK TO US NOW? 'Yeh I do!' " The card is dated and signed by respondent and by Officer McAllister. A recent high school graduate, Elstad was fully capable of understanding this careful administering of Miranda warnings. 5 Justice BRENNAN, with an apocalyptic tone, heralds this opinion as dealing a "crippling blow to Miranda. " Post, at 319. Justice BRENNAN not only distorts the reasoning and holding of our decision, but, worse, invites trial courts and prosecutors to do the same. 1 "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oregon v. Elstad“Warning after the admission is too late, and the bare fact of subsequent repetition... cannot make the admission admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Haas“he might as well answer the questions put to him, since the [authorities are] already aware of the earlier answers,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oregon v. Elstad
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.