Bretti v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
439 F.2d 1042 · 1971
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably United States v. Gay (1985), United States v. Jones (1973)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Townsend v. Sain · Jones 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We need not here decide whether the arrest of appellant was legal or not, for, even if illegal, we think that the subsequent consent was untainted . .." * * * * * * While warnings prior to a consensual search may not have the same indispensability as those required prior to a confession ... they do help ensure that the consent is free, voluntary, and untainted by the arrest's possible illegality. In the instant case the presence of these warnings leads us to conclude that any coercion flowing from the possible illegality of appellant's arrest was dissipated. We therefore hold that the evidence supports the conclusion that appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not here decide whether the arrest of appellant was legal or not, for, even if illegal, we think that the subsequent consent was untainted . ..”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“included a warning that the defendant had a right to refuse consent, that anything found could be used against him, and that he had a right to consult with an attorney. Finding the consent voluntary and untainted, the court assumed sub silentio that the causal connection was broken and the evidence seized as a result of the search based on consent was untainted and admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Juarez v. State
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.