Proctor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions

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

1. ““At the outset, we hold that the questions which the arresting officer asked Proctor in the course of filling out the lineup sheet constituted in-custody interrogation. It may be that the officer asked these questions without any intent to elicit from Proctor a statement, damaging or otherwise, bearing on the crime with which he was charged. But the intent with which the questions were asked is not relevant here. Even innocent questions asked of a suspect in the inherently coercive atmosphere of the police station may create in him the impression that he must answer them. His answers then cannot be considered voluntary in the sense required by Miranda . Where such answers turn out to be damaging to the suspect, they cannot be used against him at trial, absent a valid waiver of the Miranda rights.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Taylor · State v. Smith

2. ““* * * a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful sense of the word and may not be used without the full warnings and effective waiver required for any other statement. * * *” 384 U.S. at 477 , 86 S.Ct. at 1629 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 725 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Velarde v. People

3. ““* * The arrested person may, of course, be ‘booked’ by the police. But he is not to be taken to police headquarters in order to carry out a process of inquiry that lends itself, even if not so designed, to eliciting damaging statements . . . .” 404 F.2d at 821 [emphasis by D.C. Circuit].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Menichino