United States v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

129 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““3. Seizure of address book. Murray argues that the seizure and use in evidence of his address book and entries therein violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Murray relies primarily upon an observation by Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 633, 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), to the effect that the seizure of a person’s private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is not substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. Boyd involved a self-incrimination problem because the defendant was required by court order to produce a self-incriminating invoice. No .such circumstance is present here. Actual-. ly, Murray’s address book could have been seized as an instrumentality of the crime under the law as it existed prior to Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), which overturned the ‘mere evidence’ rule. Hayden, of course, liberalized the rule as to what items may be seized. In Hayden, however, the court reserved the question of whether, in a search and seizure otherwise valid, the authorities could, in view of the privilege against self-incrimination, take items which are ‘testimonial’ or ‘communicative’ in nature. See Hayden, at 302-303, 87 S.Ct. 1642 . But in United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888 , 896 (2d Cir. 1969), the Second Circuit held that such items can be taken during a lawful search and seizure and are admissible. We agree. In Blackford v. Un”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Dawson

2. “We turn first to the contention that the 1954 and 1958 convictions were invalid because pleas of guilty were not voluntarily and intelligently given. In its plurality opinion in Loper v. Beto, Corrections Director, 405 U.S. 473, 480-483 , 92 S.Ct. 1014 , 31 D.Ed.2d 374 (1972), the Supreme Court concluded that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Qideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (deprived of assistance of counsel) to impeach a defendant’s credibility deprives him of due process of law. We assume, for present purposes, that a deprivation of due process would similarly occur if the prior convictions were unconstitutionally invalid for any other reason, such as pleas of guilty which were not voluntarily and intelligently given. [Footnote omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Douglas v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

3. “Walker concedes that the motion was addressed to the district court’s discretion. Under Rule 15(a), the court may order such a deposition if it appears that the prospective witness may be unable to attend or prevented from attending the trial or hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People of Territory of Guam v. Ngirangas