United States v. Rodrigues’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably United States v. Nai Fook Li (2000), United States of America v. Juan Chaparro-Alcantara Jaime Romero-Bautista (2000)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 18 U.S.C. § 3501
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mapp v. Ohio · Griffin v. California · Massiah v. United States · Elkins v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending state: ... (b) if [the defendant] so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; (c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation.... 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“most courts in the United States have recognized that Article 36 does create standing for foreign nationals to assert their individual rights”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“arguably confers on an individual the right to consular assistance following arrest,”
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.