George W. Melson v. Thomas R. Sard’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 653 · 1968
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably McGautha v. California (1971), 37 Cal. 3d 802 - Ramona R. v. Superior Court (1985)
28 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 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
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Spevack v. Klein · United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a parolee is not given the full and free ability to testify in his own behalf and present his case against revocation, his right to a hearing before the Board would be meaningless. Furthermore, his Fifth Amendment rights must not be conditioned ‘by the exaction of a price.’ Accordingly, we hold that any self-incriminatory statements made in a parole revocation hearing shall not be used affirmatively against the parolee in any subsequent criminal proceeding.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lynott v. Story · Flint v. Mullen“"We think the solution lies in establishing certain safeguards by which the parolee's dilemma is lessened at the revocation hearing. We feel that the parolee's most significant handicap the fear of self-incrimination can readily be eliminated... . Accordingly, we hold that any self-incriminatory statements made in a parole revocation hearing shall not be used affirmatively against the parolee in any subsequent criminal proceeding." [footnotes omitted]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We decline, however, to grant relief from appellant’s second objection— that a pretrial hearing will force him to tip his hand in advance of trial and consequently reveal a portion of his defense strategy. Although appellant may necessarily have to divulge a part of his defense, this is offset by his ability to learn much of the Government’s ease against him. Certainly there is enough merit in the achievement of greater mutual pretrial discovery in criminal cases that we cannot condemn such a consequence as one which the court must resolutely forbid.” 402 F.2d at 655 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Flint v. Mullen
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.