United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 167 · 1972
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Barlow (1982), Wofford v. State (1997)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Harrington v. California
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'for the purpose of aiding and abetting the federal officers in carrying on interrogation of the suspect in violation of Federal Rule 5(a) requiring prompt arraignment.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any criminal prosecution by the United States ... a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer . . . shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if the weight to be given the confession is left to the jury and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Bruton rule, applied retroactively in Roberts v. Russell [citation omitted] seeks to avoid a serious flaw in the fact-finding process at trial. Any violation of that rule • might, therefore, present an appropriate occasion for the recognition of a plain error.””
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.