United States v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 412 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Bradley v. Ohio (1990), United States v. Bailey (1997)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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. § 113
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mathis v. United States · United States v. Tresvant · Cervantes v. Walker · United States v. Conley
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`necessarily implies a change in the surroundings of the prisoner which results in an added imposition on his freedom of movement.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like Conley, defendants here were taken to a conference area not for the purpose of interrogation but primarily for another reason. Specifically, they were taken to a disciplinary board room to converse with a correctional treatment specialist at their request. Thus, defendants were moved from their cell to an inherently less restrictive area. Furthermore, there was testimony that one of two doors to the room remained unlocked. Although Conley was questioned by correctional officers or guards, defendants were questioned by a correctional treatment specialist, an arguably less intimidating prison representative. Finally, it is significant that defendants were not handcuffed; Conley wore handcuffs and, at some points, full restraints. Overall, we conclude that defendants did not experience an added imposition on [their] freedom of movement, and thus, were not in custody.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, whether an inmate is `in custody' under Miranda depends on the circumstances of the case.”
2 later decisions 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.