United States v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 938 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Davis v. United States · Smith v. Illinois
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nstead of using a word like "should" or "might," which would suggest that the defendants were still undecided about whether they wanted a lawyer, all three defendants used the word "can." The defendants' choice of the word "can," by definition, means that they were inquiring into their present ability to be "able to" obtain a lawyer or to "have the opportunity or possibility to" obtain a lawyer. In sum, given the text of the previous statements that our circuit has found sufficient to invoke the right to counsel, the text of [the defendant's] request was sufficient to have put a reasonable officer on notice that [the defendant] was invoking his right to counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“obtain a lawyer. In sum, given the text of the previous statements that our circuit has found sufficient to invoke the right to counsel, the text of [the defendant's] request was sufficient to have put a reasonable officer on notice that [the defendant] was invoking his right to counsel. Hunter, 708 F.3d at 943-44 (citation omitted). Similarly, in Sessoms v. Grounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the question-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“What do you want me to tell these people?,” which prompted an incriminating response. The Seventh Circuit held that the question was an interrogation and an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hernandez v. Holland
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.