Pea v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 627 · 1967
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2009 · most notably Lego v. Twomey (1972), Commonwealth v. Tavares (1982)
45 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Jackson v. Denno · Malloy v. Hogan · McNabb v. United States
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A man’s free will and intellect necessarily embrace a freedom of choice. Whether a man may speak out at a given time, and wliat he may say, reflect the tension of manifold forces within him, some moving him to speak, others to refrain from speaking. The number and quality of these forces are as complex as the emotions, ego and conscience of man. The statement, if any, that is the resultant of these forces will depend on the kind of stimuli before him and the kind of person he is, but whether he is noble or ignoble, in general or on the particular occasion, his statement reflecting his freedom of choice, his free will and free intellect, is admissible in evidence against him. As distinguished from inanimate evidence a testimonial statement, whether made at or before trial presents the unique eviden-tiary contribution of ‘an individual human personality whose attributes of will, perception, memory and volition interact to determine what testimony he will give.’ Smith and Bowden v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1 , 3, 324 F.2d 879 , 881 (1963). The make-up of a free man includes his mechanisms for self-preservation, to refrain from speech that may endanger him. If he does speak out his statement is admissible as the reflection of his free will if his self-preservation mechanism, and its impetus to silence, is overridden by pressures within his own personality, by his own conscience, religious feelings, sense of duty, etc. But his statement does not reflect his own free will or”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]urely in the present stage of our civilization a most basic sense of justice is affronted by the spectacle of incarcerating a human being upon the basis of a statement he made while insane; and this judgment can without difficulty be articulated in terms of the unreliability of the confession, the lack of rational choice by the accused, or simply a strong conviction that our system of law enforcement should not operate so as to take advantage of. a person in this fashion. 361 U.S. at 207 , - 80 S.Ct. at 280 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"This case is but another manifestation in this court of a tendency happily not widespread in appellate courts to follow the Jerome Frank syndrome a school of thought which profoundly mistrusts juries, and prefers fact finding by one judge whose conclusions can more readily be upset by appellate judges." (footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.