United States v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 208 · 1973
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 178 - People v. Duck Wong (1976), United States v. Mohabir (1980)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Massiah 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or by law is authorized to do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]his case is governed by a plethora of decisions which have admitted confessions made under similar circumstances. These decisions have concentrated on- the issue of whether the defendant’s waiver was voluntary and knowing, and all have admitted confessions made without noticé to counsel because the defendant was notified of his rights and deliberately waived them. These cases plainly indicate that it makes no difference whether the police or' the defendant initiate the interviews, or how often or long the defendant is questioned, for the main concern is the validity of his waiver.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Adkins““The * * * question is whether Massiah is limited to post-indictment statements or whether it includes statements obtained after arrest and preliminary hearing. I read Massiah to bar the admissibility of the statements obtained here since the Government had initiated ‘adversary judicial criminal proceedings’ against Durham prior to the time the statements were obtained. Cf. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688 , [ 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 ] * * * (1972). * * *” 475 F.2d at 210-211 .”
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.