Bobby v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis
565 U.S. 23 · 2011
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Arizona v. Fulminante · Mincey v. Arizona · Oregon v. Elstad · Miller v. Fenton
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Dixon stated that he had heard the police had found a body and asked whether [his accomplice] was in custody. The police told Dixon that [the accomplice] was not, at which point Dixon said, 'I talked to my attorney, and I want to tell you what happened.' " Id. After the officers advised him of his Miranda rights, Dixon admitted to murdering the victim. Id. Ultimately, Dixon's case reached the Supreme Court in the form of an appeal from the denial of his § 2254 petition. The Court, citing both Elstad and Seibert , held: In this case, no two-step interrogation technique of the type that concerned the Court in Seibert undermined the Miranda warnings Dixon received. In Seibert , the suspect's first, unwarned interrogation left "little, if anything, of incriminating potential left unsaid,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Maclaren“[U]nlike in [ Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S. Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) ], there is no concern here that police gave [defendant] Miranda warnings and then led him to repeat an earlier murder confession, because there was no earlier confession to repeat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Maclaren“there is no warrant for presuming coercive effect where the suspect's initial inculpatory statement, though technically in violation of Miranda, was voluntary. The relevant inquiry is whether, in fact, the second [warned] statement was also voluntarily made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Maclaren
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.