Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 F.2d 25 - United States v. Franks

United States v. Franks’s Empirical Analysis

511 F.2d 25 · 1975

Citation profile

215
cited by 215 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

130 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 215 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 24 - People v. Kelly (1976), United States v. Downing (1985)

130 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 states

83019751980199020002010decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 842 · 18 U.S.C. § 844

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Frye v. United States · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · United States v. Dionisio

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

  1. “we deem general acceptance as being nearly synonomous with reliability. If a scientific process is reliable, or sufficiently accurate, courts may also deem it 'generally accepted.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mitchell and Britton claim that the court order compelling them to give voice exemplars violated their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 764 , 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973), established that compelling voice-prints even of the same words used in the crime does not violate the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Accord, United States v. Rogers, 475 F.2d 821 , 825-826 (7th Cir. 1973). Moreover, compelling a voice-print is neither a “search” nor a “seizure.” Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14-15 , 93 S.Ct. 764 . We reject Mitchell’s attempt to limit Dionisio to the grand jury context in that, so long as the underlying seizure of the person is proper, requiring that person to submit voice exemplars violates no constitutional rights. See United States v. Rogers, 475 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1973) (court-ordered submission); United States v. Sanders, 477 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 870 , 94 S.Ct. 88 , 38 L.Ed.2d 88 (1973) (legally in custody on another matter).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.”
    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.