United States v. Scios’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 956 · 1978
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Commonwealth v. Young (1981), United States v. Lyons (1983)
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the present case, it is plain that Massa’s giving of testimony — before the grand jury, and presumably at the trial— is purely and simply a product of coercion. Massa’s decision to testify is not a matter of choice, or free will, but made solely to avoid being jailed for contempt. His decision to testify in such circumstances can hardly be what Judge Burger had in mind in Smith and Bowden [v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1 , 324 F.2d 879 (1963)] when he spoke of the “human personality whose attributes of will, perception, memory and volition interact to determine what testimony he will give.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bravo · People v. Briggs“Justice Rehnquist, for the Court, found that the taint of the illegal search by the officer had been sufficiently attenuated to permit introduction of the testimony. The Court rejected the notion that the exclusionary rule was subject to a per se exception that rendered all live witness testimony admissible, regardless of whether obtained as a consequence of illegality. Instead, the particular features of a case must be examined to balance the benefits of the exclusionary rule, with its deterrent purpose, against the costs. [ 590 F.2d at 962 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Patterson v. State“Individuals... ordinarily have no recognized privacy interest in information disclosed by them to or otherwise possessed by third parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Stewart v. Evans
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.