United States v. Gotchis’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 74 · 1986
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Parker (1990), United States v. Sblendorio (1987)
33 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 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. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Illinois v. Gates · Rhode Island v. Innis · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... Routine questions about a suspect’s identity and marital status, ordinarily innocent of any investigative purpose, do not pose the dangers Miranda was designed to check; they are rather the sort of questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody,” see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), .... It is true, as Gotchis argues, that lack of employment may evince intent to distribute [narcotics] in a particular case. But ... procurement of employment data would in most cases be as innocent and as useful for purposes of booking and arraignment as procurement of data about a suspect’s marital status ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 26.2(f)(1), it seems to us, contemplates writings that the witness has in some manner vouched for. Candell, who apparently just wrote down what Cash told him, did not sign, approve, or adopt the notes. He was in no position when he took the notes to vouch for the accuracy of Cash’s tip. Although he later acted on the information Cash had given him, nursing the belief or hope, no doubt, that the information was accurate, he did not thereby “adopt” Cash’s description of the suspect in any way we think the rule embraces.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would place especially undesirable constraints on the government by precluding ... comments [on the absence of evidence to rebut its case] where defense counsel himself has suggested the alternative theory that the prosecutor then undertakes to debunk”
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.