United States v. Bordeaux’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 548 · 2005
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 40 Cal. 4th 965 - People v. Cage (2007), State v. Stahl (2006)
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 24 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Blakely v. Washington · Crawford v. Washington · Burks 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.
“the evidence require[d] the conclusion that the purpose was to collect information for law enforcement. First, as a matter of course, the center made one copy of the videotape of this kind of interview for use by law enforcement. Second, at trial, the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the interview as a “forensic” interview, meaning that it “pertain[ed] to, [was] connected with, or [was to be] used in courts of law.” ... That [the victim’s] statements may have also had a medical purpose does not change the fact that they were testimonial, because Crawford does not indicate, and logic does not dictate, that multipurpose statements cannot be testimonial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. N.W. v. State · N.W. v. State“We conclude that Mr. Bordeaux was not in custody. The agent told Mr. Bordeaux that his participation in the interview was voluntary, that he could end the interview at any time, that he was not under arrest, and that he would not be arrested at the end of the interview. He had unrestrained freedom of movement during the interview — the officers allowed him to go into the apartment building by himself in the midst of the interview. He also was not subjected to any strong arm or deceptive tactics; no one menaced or tricked him. Finally, notwithstanding his low IQ, it was not reasonable for him to believe that he was in custody: No great mental acu men was required to understand his situation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And one can imagine that this incremental step away from face-to-face confrontations results in a further diluted truth-inducing effect. That said, the touchstone for deciding whether a”
2 later decisions 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.