United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
405 F.2d 14 · 1968
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2010
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 661
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffin v. California · United States v. Gainey · Hem v. United States · Dunlop 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the challenged inference could fairly be regarded as a comment by the prosecution on Williams’ failure to testify it would indeed be invalid. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). The Supreme Court and lower federal courts, however, have construed the inference as one arising from ‘the absence of explanatory evidence’ of any kind. Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 502-503 , 17 S.Ct. 375 , 41 L.Ed. 799 (1897); United States v. Luciano, 343 F.2d 172, 174 (4th Cir. 1965). The inference is derived from the weight of the evidence and not from the defendant’s failure to take the stand. Evidence which leaves unexplained the possession of recently stolen property may give rise to an inference of guilt. The trier of fact may accept or reject the inference, which does not affect the presumption of innocence or alter in any way the prosecution’s burden of proof. It represents nothing more than a rational conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, and this is not forbidden by common sense or the Constitution. 3 405 F.2d at 17 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rhymes““It was to offset this intimidating feature of custody that the Court fashioned the procedural requirements of Miranda , at the same time denying any intent to ‘hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime.’ The Court was careful to state that ‘ [g] eneral on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime * * * is not affected by our holding.’ 384 U.S. at 477 , 86 S.Ct. at 1629 . <( * * *”
1 later decision 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.