United States v. Odeh’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 177 · 2008
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Odeh (2008), United States v. Straker (2015)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Faretta v. California · United States v. Leon · United States v. Calandra
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] district court should be permitted, in the exercise of its discretion and in light of the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether its suppression ruling should stand.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A defendant is entitled to have evidence suppressed only if it was obtained unconstitutionally. If matters appearing later indicated that no constitutional violation occurred, society’s interest in admitting all relevant evidence militates strongly in favor of permitting reconsid eration.... [A] criminal defendant acquires no personal right of redress in suppressed evidence because the rationale for suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence is to deter official misconduct, not to compensate criminal defendants for the violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the suspect chooses to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights after a warning adapted to the circumstances of questioning overseas and chooses to speak with a U.S. agent, then neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda will bar the admission of his statement at trial.”). 17 . In the absence of any U.S. involvement in a foreign interrogation, it is an open question whether the admissibility of a defendant's statement should be assessed under the Due Process Clause by the traditional”
1 later decision 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.