United States v. Mix’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 34 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)]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. White · 330 So. 2d 557 - Hogan v. State

2. ““In the case now at bar, Schmidt [the investigator] gave complete advice to appellant as to his rights before any questioning occurred. Before he made the inculpatory statements involved, Mix was asked if he understood his rights and responded that he did understand them. It was not necessary for Agent Schmidt to run down the list of rights available to appellant seriatim and then to inquire as to each whether appellant waived that right. We are of the clear view that the government adequately established the voluntariness of the statements made to Agent Schmidt by Mix on September 5, 1969, and that accordingly the district judge did not err when he admitted them in evidence at trial.” (p. 621.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Kan. App. 2d 395 - State v. Baker

3. “enjoyed equal rights in the premises (including the room in which appellant slept) with appellant and voluntarily gave the detectives permission to search. The trial judge committed no error in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the three weapons found by the detectives. 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chandler v. State of Maryland