Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 F.2d 109 - Gilreath v. Mitchell

Gilreath v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

705 F.2d 109 · 1983

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2005

4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

60198319902000decided

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 Rogers v. Richmond · United States v. Kreczmer · 544 F. Supp. 569 - Gilreath v. Robinson

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

  1. “A careful reading of the ten pages of trial transcript in which the judge discussed his findings and his reasons for admitting the confession clearly shows that a belief in the truthfulness of the confession was not a reason for admission. In mentioning that the confession contained facts known only to the accused, the trial judge was not passing upon the credibility of the statement, but was answering the appellant’s claim that at the time of the confession he was in a psychotic state or a condition of complete helplessness where he could do no more than “to parrot back a story that was implanted in his mind by someone else of fantasy.” This is not the reliance upon truth of a confession that is condemned by Justice Frankfurter in Rogers, but is a proper inquiry and finding by the trial judge in deciding if a statement is voluntary or is the result of improper interrogation which puts words into the mouth of the accused and overrides his free will. See also United States v. Kreczmer, 636 F.2d 108 , 110-11 (5th Cir. 1981).”
    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.