United States v. Diezel’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 204 · 1979
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably United States v. Arboleda (1980), United States v. Valdez (1994)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 · Goldstein v. United States · Tate v. United States · Central South Carolina Chapter v. Martin · United States v. Evans
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the manifest intention of the prosecution was to draw attention to the defendant's post-arrest silence; or (2) the jury could infer 'naturally and necessarily' that it was a comment on the defendant's silence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harich v. Wainwright
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.