United States v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘When a defendant warned of his rights makes statements without a lawyer present, the prosecution may use these statements at trial only if it sustains its “heavy burden” of demonstrating that the defendant “knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628 (1966). ... To be valid, a waiver must be made voluntarily, United States v. Ogle, 5 Cir., 1969, 418 F.2d 238 , and may not be presumed “simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628 (1966). An express statement that the individual does not want a lawyer is not required, however, to show that the individual waived his right to have one present. See Bond v. United States, 10 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 162, 165 . All that the prosecution must show is that the defendant was effectively advised of his rights and that he then intelligently and understandingly declined to exercise them. See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 , 82 S.Ct. 884, 890 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962).’ [Emphasis supplied] [United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215, 224 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den., 397 U.S. 1022 (1970)]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 163 W. Va. 148 - State v. Bradley

2. “It is neither necessary nor desirable to undertake to fashion a per se rule to be applied in all cases presenting the Miranda issue. The crucial question always must be: has the prosecution sustained its heavy burden of demonstrating that the defendant was effectively advised of his rights, and did he knowingly and understandingly decline to exercise them? ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 330 So. 2d 557 - Hogan v. State