United States v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
462 F.2d 792 · 1972
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Michigan v. Mosley (1975), United States v. Robinson (1977)
43 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 15 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 18 U.S.C. § 5035 · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Townsend v. Sain · Harris v. New York · McNabb 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“amounted to no more than an exhortation that Collins reevaluate his decision not to talk. We do not believe that anything decided in Miranda was meant to prohibit police officers from ever asking a defendant to reconsider his refusal to answer questions. So to hold would be tantamount to enacting a “no questioning” rule once a suspect was in custody. Such a rule finds no support in the Fifth Amendment nor, fairly read, in Miranda itself, nor in common sense. . Here Collins was not subjected to any immediate re-interrogation, but only was asked to reconsider his refusal to answer. So long as such reconsideration is urged in a careful, noncoercive manner at not too great length and in the context that a defendant’s assertion of his right not to speak will be honored, it does not violate the Miranda mandate.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'interrogation must cease' until new and adequate warnings have been given and there is a reasonable basis for inferring that the suspect has voluntarily changed his mind.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the- individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent. Id., 384 U.S. at 473-474 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 .”
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.