Biddy v. Diamond’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 118 · 1975
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably State v. Richmond (1976), Martin v. Wainwright (1985)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 17 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Babich v. United States · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘there is no requirement that an accused be continually reminded of his rights once he has intelligently waived them,.’ United States v. Anthony, 474 F.2d 770, 773 (5th Cir.1973). A great many courts, state and federal, have likewise held that repeated warnings are not necessary to a finding that a defendant, with full knowledge of his rights, knowingly and intelligently waived them. United States v. Anthony, 474 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.1973); Miller v. United States, 396 F.2d 492 (8th Cir.1968); Maguire v. United States, 396 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1099 , 89 S.Ct. 897 , 21 L.Ed.2d 792 (1969); Gorman v. United States, 380 F.2d 158 (1st Cir.1967); United States v. Kinsey, 352 F.Supp. 1176 (E.D.Pa.1972); State v. Gallagher, 36 Ohio App.2d 29 , 301 N.E.2d 888 (1973); Commonwealth v. Abrams, 443 Pa. 295 , 278 A.2d 902 (1971); State v. Rowe, 77 Wash.2d 955 , 468 P.2d 1000 (1970); State v. Blanchey, 75 Wash.2d 926 , 454 P.2d 841 (1969); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); State v. Magee, 52 N.J. 352 , 245 A.2d 339 (1968); People v. Hill, 39 Ill.2d 125 , 233 N.E.2d 367 (1968); State v. Lucia, 74 Wash.2d 819 , 447 P.2d 606 (1968); People v. Schenk, 24 Cal.App.3d 233 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 75 (1972); People v. Brockman, 2 Cal.App.3d 1002 , 83 Cal. Rptr. 70 (Ct.App.1969).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question is whether the full Miranda warnings were required on December 27 and 28, even though in response to the police question petitioner expressly stated that she remembered her rights as previously explained to her. We think not.... We think that a further delineation on December 27 of petitioner’s rights, which she stated that she understood from pri- or explanations, would have been needlessly repetitious. The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Mrs. Biddy fully understood her rights at the time she made the statement to her husband with the detectives present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vining v. State“The petitioner replied that she did. On appeal, the court stated: 69 The question is whether the full Miranda warnings were required on December 27 and 28, even though in response to the police question petitioner expressly stated that she remembered her rights as previously explained to her. We think not. We have previously held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Wainwright
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.