United States v. Massimo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 8 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'the higher standard with respect to the right to counsel that applies when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McIlwain v. United States · Carvey v. LeFevre

2. ““Appellant’s arguments directed at the claimed inadequacy of counsel appear to raise serious questions. Interrogation of an accused in the ab sence of counsel after arraignment is, of course, suspect. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We do not find in the record before us sufficient support for these claims, however. The most that can be said is that there is a possibility that counsel erred, perhaps seriously, in not pressing formal objections to the admission of Massimo’s statements, and in agreeing to the stipulation which placed them before the court. The record suggests, however, another possible alternative, that this course of action was the result of a considered trial strategy by Massimo and his counsel. Massimo had a history of voluntary admissions to mental institutions and a tale of excessive intake of Doriden. Massimo also laid claim to a history of obsessive desire to damage credit card companies, particularly Uni-Serve, which had allegedly harmed him in the past. In the face of a strong government ease Massimo may well have determined early in the proceedings that his best hope lay in admission of the underlying facts and reliance on a defense of lack of mental responsibility. The government informed us at oral argument that Massimo had executed a written waiver of rights at the December 26 interview, which is not in the record before us and was ”

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

3. “'[w]arnings by law enforcement officers and subsequent action by the accused that might suffice to comply with Fifth Amendment strictures against testimonial compulsion [do] not necessarily meet . . . the higher standard with respect to waiver of the right to counsel that applies when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wyrick v. Fields