Commonwealth v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Gibson (2008), Commonwealth v. Romberger (1977)
2 federal appellate · 50 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade · Escobedo v. Illinois
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellant asserts that the signed statement which was introduced against him was involuntarily given and thus should have been suppressed. This statement was obtained during a counseled interview. . . . ". . . [T]he parents of appellant obtained counsel who met and conferred with appellant. Thereafter, a counseled interview took place during which the statement, which is now challenged, was prepared and signed. "At the outset of our consideration of appellant's challenge to this statement it must be noted that since counsel was present and appellant was provided a full opportunity to confer with him, it is obvious that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been satisfied."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may very well be that had the appellant not conferred with counsel his confession would be considered involuntary under the totality of the circumstances test. The appellant, however, after conferring with counsel, who had an opportunity to read the confession, reaffirmed, on the advice of counsel, his willingness to make the statement by signing the statement in the presence of counsel. Psychologically coercive influences may have affected the appellant prior to his consultation with counsel, but it cannot be said that the signing of the statement after consultation with counsel was a product of those factors. . Had counsel advised otherwise, any statement made or signed by the appellant prior to the appearance of counsel would present an entirely different question.””
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.