James v. Illinois’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 6 district · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 306 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Hudson v. Michigan (2006), 38 Cal. 4th 412 - People v. Boyer (2006)
76 federal appellate · 6 district · 154 state decisions — followed in 24 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 · Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Imbler v. Pachtman
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 306 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he exception leaves defendants free to testify truthfully on their own behalf; they can offer probative and exculpatory evidence to the jury without opening the door to impeachment by carefully avoiding any statements that directly contradict the suppressed evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court has carved out exceptions to the exclusionary rule....”); Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 9.6(a), at 395 (2d ed. 1999) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]uch if not most of the time, police officers confront opportunities to obtain evidence illegally after they have already legally obtained (or know that they have other means of legally obtaining) sufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie case. In these situations, a rule requiring exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from only the government's case in chief would leave officers with little to lose and much to gain by overstepping constitutional limits on evidence gathering. Narrowing the exclusionary rule in this matter, therefore, would significantly undermine the rule's ability "to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available wayby removing the incentive to disregard it." Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , [1444] 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). So long as we are committed to protecting the people from the disregard of their constitutional rights during the course of criminal investigations, inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence must remain the rule, not the exception. James, 493 U.S. at 319 , 110 S.Ct. at 655 , 107 L.Ed.2d at 687-88 (footnote omitted).”
2 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.