Douglas v. Cupp’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.2d 266 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2002
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Hale
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“act[ ] as an impermissible penalty on the exercise of the . . . right to remain silent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While perhaps inadvertent, the placement of the suspect question at the end of the arresting officer's testimony gave it a prominence which it would not have had, had it simply been recounted as part of a description of the events culminating in the petitioner's arrest. Thus it is plausible to suppose that a juror might have inferred from the offending testimony that the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged, and that his alibi was a later fabrication and without foundation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purposefully elicited the fact of silence in the face of arrest.”
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.