United States v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.3d 528 · 2007
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Villafuerte (2007), 229 Ill. 2d 322 - People v. Lopez (2008)
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 11 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. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Johnson v. United States · Oregon v. Elstad · Missouri v. Seibert
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Justice Kennedy’s view, however, an inquiry into change in time and circumstances between the prewarning and postwarning statements—what he called “curative steps”—is necessary only in cases involving the deliberate use of a two-step interrogation strategy calculated to evade the requirements of Miranda. Justice Kennedy thus provided a fifth vote to depart from Elstad, but only where the police set out deliberately to withhold Miranda warnings until after a confession has been secured. Where the initial violation of Miranda was not part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the warnings, Elstad appears to have survived Seibert.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, [2] the overlapping content of the two statements, [3] the timing and setting of the first and the second, [4] the continuity of police personnel, and [5] the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the thing that I wrestled with was the defendant’s role in the offense. 3Bl.l(a) states that if a defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, then he can be liable. I think that this covers this defendant.”
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.