Moore v. Illinois’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
237 federal appellate · 21 district · 691 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,236 later decisions (61 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Edwards v. Arizona (1981), Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986)
237 federal appellate · 21 district · 691 state decisions — followed in 46 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers
Cited together with United States v. Wade · Kirby v. Illinois · Chapman v. State of California · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 1,236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment " (italics supplied) could be taken to mean that if the prosecution began when the arraignment was completed the defendant should be represented by counsel during the entire course of the arraignment. 59 However, from a practical standpoint arraignment is ordinarily not a critical stage where advice of counsel is important but merely a formality or historical relic. As explained by Blackstone 8 at arraignment the defendant's name is called and he raises his hand. This is to identify the person brought into court as the person against whom the charges are being brought. It is also the time when the defendant "puts himself upon the country”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““... the prosecution cannot buttress its case-in-chief by introducing evidence of a pretrial identification made in violation of the accused’s Sixth Amendment rights, even if it can prove that the pretrial identification had an independent source ‘That testimony is the direct result of the illegal lineup “come at by exploitation of [the primary] illegality,” ’ Gilbert, 388 U.S., at 272-273 [87 S.Ct. at 1956-1957], and the prosecution is ‘therefore not entitled to an opportunity to show that the testimony had an independent source’ Id., at 273 [87 S.Ct. at 1957]. Because the prosecution made use of such testimony in this case, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the strict rule of Gilbert’’ (at 231-232, 98 S.Ct. at 466 )”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification[ ] w[as] based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification.”
5 later decisions 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.