Brown v. Epps’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.3d 281 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Bourjaily v. United States · Davis v. Washington · Dutton v. Evans · Harrington v. Richter
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether such circumstances exist, courts consider whether the individual “was speaking about events as they were actually happening, rather than ‘describing] past events’”; whether the statements enabled police to resolve an ongoing emergency; and whether the statements were made in a formal setting. The Court has emphasized that “[a]n objective analysis of the circumstances of an encounter and the statements and actions of the parties to it provides the most accurate assessment of the ‘primary purpose of the interrogation.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]any other Circuits have come to the same conclusion, and none disagree”) (citations omitted). . Under Rule 404(b),”
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.