United States v. Cherry’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 201 · 1986
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Sangineto-Miranda (1988), State v. Thurman (1993)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Edwards v. Arizona · United States v. Mendenhall
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Elstad held that a Miranda violation creates a presumption, that the suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been violated. But the presumption may be overcome by the circumstances of a particular case. The Miranda exclusionary rule "serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than Fifth Amendment itself." Elstad , 470 U.S. at —, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 . The Supreme Court concluded that claims based upon Miranda violations are not always Fifth Amendment violations. Therefore, they do not automatically establish the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained. . Since Elstad makes clear that failure to give or carry out the obligation of Miranda warnings in and of itself is not a constitutional infringement, the test by which to evaluate whether a defendant's underlying Fifth Amendment right against compelled testimony has been violated is still the " 'due process voluntariness test.'" This due process voluntariness inquiry applies to the case before us since the issue is the use of derivative evidence obtained through the exploitation of statements obtained in violation of Miranda. In Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the testimony of a prosecution witness whose identity was discovered as a result of a statement obtained from the defendant in violation of Miranda would not be suppressed. The Supreme Court noted that the statement had been voluntarily given and that Miranda did not protec”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he development of independently procured probable cause following an illegal arrest is a critical factor attenuating the taint of the initial illegal arrest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Most of the 50 cases cited by JUSTICE BRENNAN [dissent] in his discussion of consecutive confessions concern an initial unwarned statement obtained through overtly or inherently coercive methods which raise serious Fifth Amendment and due process concerns_JUSTICE BRENNAN cannot seriously mean to equate such situations with the case at bar. Likewise inapposite are the cases the dissent cites concerning suspects whose invocation of their rights to remain silent and to have counsel present were flatly ignored while police subjected them to continued interrogation.”
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.