Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 658 F.2d 406 - Henry v. Dees

Henry v. Dees’s Empirical Analysis

658 F.2d 406 · 1981

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007 · most notably Wyrick v. Fields (1982), State v. Hernandez (1987)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states

280198119902000decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Rhode Island v. Innis · Oregon v. Mathiason

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When persons of markedly limited mental ability ... are questioned without the aid of counsel, issues ‘of suggestibility and possible overreaching are raised ... and must be factored into a consideration of the totality of the circumstances.’ Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929, 938 (5th Cir.1980). Extra precautions must be taken. It must be painstakingly determined that they comprehend what events are transpiring.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “test, the United States Fifth Circuit concluded that Henry's statements were not freely and voluntarily made and should have been suppressed. Considered important were the facts that the examination was aborted and a definitive test result was never secured. [8] The court found that Henry's mental capacity [9] brought into serious question his ability to understand the waiver forms he executed. Further, the court noted that neither Henry nor his counsel contemplated that Henry would be exposed to”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n considering the voluntariness of a confession, this court must take into account a defendant's mental limitations, to determine whether through susceptibility to surrounding pressures or inability to comprehend the circumstances, the confession was not a product of his own free will.”
    1 later decision 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.