Connecticut v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
224 federal appellate · 82 district · 503 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 982 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Davis v. United States (1994), Dickerson v. United States (2000)
224 federal appellate · 82 district · 503 state decisions — followed in 39 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Long
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 982 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But we know of no constitutional objective that would be served by suppression in this case. It is undisputed that [the defendant] desired the presence of counsel before making a written statement. Had the police obtained such a statement without meeting the waiver standards of Edwards, it would clearly be inadmissible. The defendant’s limited requests for counsel, however, were accompanied by affirmative announcements of his willingness to speak with the authorities. The fact that officials took the opportunity provided by [the defendant] to obtain an oral confession is quite consistent with the Fifth Amendment.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Doubts must be resolved in favor of protecting the constitutional claim. This settled approach to questions of waiver requires us to give a broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation to a defendant’s request for counsel — we presume that the defendant requests the lawyer’s services at every critical stage of the prosecution. We thus reject the State’s suggestion that respondents’ request for the appointment of counsel [at arraignment] should be construed to apply only to representation in formal legal proceedings.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It remains clear, however, that this prohibition on further questioning--like other aspects of Miranda--is not itself required by the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on coerced confessions, but instead is justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose.”
9 later decisions 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.