United States v. Chadwick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Aside from the Miranda-based decisions, appellant asserts the novel proposition that the government’s right to introduce evidence obtained from Francis is even more narrowly circumscribed by the requirements for vol-untariness of ‘confessions’ under 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . That section lists five factors which a Judge should consider in his determination of voluntariness before submission of the evidence to the jury. From this appellant argues that disclosures and evidence sufficiently voluntary to be admissible under Miranda nevertheless may be involuntary as a matter of law under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That contention does not require extended discussion. It is sufficient to note that neither the language of § 3501 nor its legislative history indicate that Congress intended to expand the protection of potential criminal defendants beyond the scope of protection established by the Miranda line of cases.” [pp. 91-92],”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Halbert · United States v. William Darrell Halbert, (Two Cases)

2. “At the outset, the police, assuming they have probable cause for arrest, are entitled to ask the arrested suspect what he knows about a crime. If he denies knowledge, they are entitled to state to him what evidence they have and ask whether he cares to comment upon it. A strong circumstantial case which would satisfy the U.S. Commissioner, prima facie, might well be explained away by a suspect who knew what information the police relied on— hence leading to no charge being made. If the suspect continues to deny knowledge, the police are entitled to conclude the interview by saying, in effect, “Do you have anything further to tell us, or do you just want to let it stand the way it is?” * * * Such questions as these the police may ask — indeed should ask; it is only when the questioning crosses into what can be termed “grilling,” or is continued beyond the brief period allowed, that the resulting confession may be held inadmissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Carney

3. “If, from an objective appraisal of the surrounding circumstances, it appears that an arrested person is detained in state custody for the purpose of allowing federal officers to obtain a confession before he is taken to a commissioner [magistrate] for arraignment [preliminary hearing] in accordance with Rule 5, the confession is ipso facto inadmissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Gaines