Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 738 F.2d 214 - Robinson v. Percy

Robinson v. Percy’s Empirical Analysis

738 F.2d 214 · 1984

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Patterson v. Illinois (1988), Collazo v. Estelle (1991)

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

260198419902000decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Wade

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

  1. “There is nothing inherently adversary when police elicit information from a suspect to help identify him. To complete the booking form, police often take a suspect’s fingerprints, photograph him, and ask his name, address, and other routine questions. If this process produces misleading or inaccurate information, the accused’s attorney may explain it at trial. See Gilbert [v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267 , 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967)]. Indeed, asking questions during processing may help police accurately identify a suspect, as here where Robinson initially insisted that he was his own brother. Processing thus may alleviate the potential for misidentification that prompted the Court to hold the pretrial lineup to be a critical stage in Wade . Because the risk of prejudice to a defendant during processing is slight, we hold that processing is not a critical stage of the prosecution, and thus Robinson had no sixth amendment right to counsel at that time.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an accused ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Robinson emphasizes that only a couple of minutes elapsed between the captain's illegal questioning and his own confession. Although this was not a lengthy break in time, we believe that several other factors show that Robinson's confession was independent of his earlier statements.”
    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.