Commonwealth v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2015
11 state decisions
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 10 U.S.C. § 831
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Stone v. Powell · Malloy v. Hogan · Brewer v. Williams
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 , 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968) {Miranda applicable where Internal Revenue Service agents questioned suspect during custodial interrogation); United States v. De La Cruz, 420 F.2d 1093 (7th Cir.1970) (Miranda applicable where airport customs officer questioned suspect during custodial interrogation); United States v. Planche, 525 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976) (Miranda applicable where liquor control agents question suspect during custodial interrogation); Commonwealth v. Simala, 434 Pa. 219 , 252 A.2d 575 (1969) (Miranda applicable where city mayor questioned suspect during custodial interrogation); Commonwealth v. Bordner, 432 Pa. 405 , 247 A.2d 612 (1968) (Miranda applicable where suspect’s father questioned suspect, in presence and with the acquiescence of police officers, during custodial interrogation); United States v. Miller, 261 F.Supp. 442 (D.Del.1966) (Miranda applicable where military officers questioned suspect during custodial interrogation).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Q. Private McGrath you’re in here because its been indicated via the Battalion legal office that you’re some type of fraudulent enlistment. It can be of any variety of reasons. Could have past police record or it could be of child support or any number of matters or reasons why there is a fraudulent enlistment. I am here to help you out and of course refer my recommendation to the Battalion Commander concerning retention. At this time I said you can tell me what it is about that you know of and maybe something you failed to tell the recruiter at the time of enlistment and if you want to, then I can help you based on the information you give me — some advice and what tell the Battalion Commander concerning retention. Notes of Testimony of Suppression Hearing (N.T.S.H.) 533.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We are not here concerned with the failure of Captain Gaskin or other Marine Corps personnel to give the warnings required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31(b). See note 2, supra. Article 31(b) would be relevant, perhaps dispositive, if we were reviewing a military proceeding. Since the instant proceeding is a civilian, criminal prosecution by a state sovereign, however, it is only Miranda , and federal and state precedent applying Miranda that governs the admissibility of McGrath’s statements. See United States v. Miller, 261 F.Supp. 442 (D.Del.1966) (McGrath, 504 Pa. [at] 109, 110, 470 A.2d at 490 n.3.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.