United States v. Bohle’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 54 · 1971
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Estelle v. Smith (1981), State v. Cooey (1989)
106 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 24 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 28 U.S.C. § 1732
Relies on Pointer v. Texas · Douglas v. Alabama · Alford v. United States · Palmer v. Hoffman · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An indictment alleges proper venue when it alleges facts which, if proven, would sustain venue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is fundamentally unfair to use defendant’s incriminating admissions to a psychiatrist during a psychiatric examination as part of the prosecution’s case to establish his guilt.... The defendant is entitled to raise his mental condition at the time of the offense as a defense. He is also entitled, under proper circumstances, to an examination to determine his competency to stand trial. Psychiatric examinations are essential to the proof of his mental condition. An indigent must seek a court-order authorizing the examination and the payment of its costs. If the giving of a Miranda warning satisfied requirements of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and made the defendant’s incriminating admissions admissible, the defendant would be placed in a situation where he must sacrifice one constitutional right to claim another. If a defendant cooperated with the psychiatrist and made a full disclosure of his thinking processes and his background, including incriminating statements and if he failed to establish his lack of mental capacity, he would be faced with these admissions on trial. If a defendant exercised his right to remain silent and refused to cooperate with the psychiatrist the likelihood of a meaningful and reliable examination would be considerable decreased and his opportunity to urge a possible defense thwarted. A defendant should not be compelled to choose between exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his due process right”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Snethen v. Nix“We are not persuaded by defendant’s pedantic reasoning that Congress intended to make the hijacking of an aircraft a crime only if the hijacker intended to deprive permanently the owner of it. We agree with the Government and the district court that the wrongful intent referred to in the statute is no more than the general criminal intent present when one seizes or exercises control of an aircraft without having any legal right to do so.”
1 later decision 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.