Smith v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 1149 · 1978
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Smith (1993), United States v. Glenna (1989)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Schmerber v. State of California · Stone v. Powell
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A consent to search is not a self-incriminating statement.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consent to search is not a self-incriminating statement; '[i]t is not in itself evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.' " Smith v. Wainwright, 581 F.2d 1149 , 1152 (5th Cir.1978) (quoting United States v. Lemon, 550 F.2d 467 , 472 (9th Cir.1977)). The court concluded that: 21 [t]he failure of the police to halt questioning once Smith mentioned his attorney, then is relevant only with regard to the Fourth Amendment issue of whether Smith's consent to search was voluntarily given. Under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the failure to cease questioning would be a factor to be considered in "the totality of all [of] the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tukes v. Dugger“conviction [was] not the result of self-incriminating statements made to police, but the result of physical evidence seized from his truck[,]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tukes v. Dugger
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.