United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
79 F.3d 298 · 1996
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Russel William Burket v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections (2000), Bui v. DiPaolo (1999)
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Davis v. United States · Soberon 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Miranda Warnings are intended principally to safeguard the suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination. See e.g., Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527, 534 (2d Cir.1994). To that end, law enforcement agents conducting a custodial interrogation are required to advise a suspect, inter-alia, that he has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with counsel. If the government wishes to introduce into evidence at trial a statement made during such an interrogation, it has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspect waived his Miranda rights and that his statement was “truly the product of free choice.” United States v. Anderson, 929 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir.1991).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In some circumstances it may be unclear whether a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent. We have stated that where a suspect has invoked his right equivocally or ambiguously, the officers are permitted to ask narrow questions only for the purpose of clarifying the ambiguity. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The weight of the evidence is a matter for argument to the jury, not a ground for reversal on appeal.”
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.