Flint v. Mullen’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 100 · 1974
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976), 13 Cal. 3d 867 - People v. Coleman (1975)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 14 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Simmons v. United States · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · McGautha v. California · Lefkowitz v. Turley
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Unlike the defendant in Simmons , petitioner was never faced with a choice between raising one constitutional right and foregoing another. The choice whether or not to exercise one’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent must often be made in a setting where there is a concomitant due process right to be heard. Petitioner’s decision was, in effect, the same choice he or any other defendant must make when brought to trial. In Simmons , the penalty for remaining silent was waiver of a Fourth Amendment claim; in Palmigiano the inmate was specifically advised that his silence would be held against him. Here, however, the government had to prove its case by extrinsic evidence and there is no indication that defendant was penalized for silence except to the degree that anyone who claims the privilege may be said to forego the possibility of persuading a court in his favor.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arthurs v. Stern · State v. Hass“[t]he suggestion in the dissent that Rhode Island may have used the violation proceeding to gather evidence is totally inapplicable to any of the present facts; . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]ot every undesirable consequence which may follow from the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination can be characterized as a penalty.”
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.