Walker v. Butterworth’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 1074 · 1979
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Jessup (1985), Commonwealth v. Young (1981)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The practice of isolating the accused in a four foot high box very well may affect a juror’s objectivity. Confinement in a prisoner dock focuses attention on the accused and may create the impression that he is somehow different or dangerous. By treating the accused in this distinctive manner, a juror may be influenced throughout the trial. The impression created may well erode the presumption of innocence that every person is to enjoy.” Walker v. Butterworth, 599 F.2d 1074 , 1080 (1st Cir.1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[b]ecause confinement in the prisoner dock is unnecessary to accomplish any important state interest and may well dilute the presumption of innocence, the Massachusetts prisoner dock must be considered, as a general matter, to be an unconstitutional practice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The critical question, for the purposes of the self-incrimination clause, is whether the forced utterances had communicative content. . . . The concept of verbal communication ... is not limited to narration or direct confessions of guilt. Rather, verbal communication is the use of words to impart or transmit information.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Tyars v. Finner
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.