Deering v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 539 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2016
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schmerber v. State of California · Doyle v. Ohio · Mincey v. Arizona · Malloy v. Hogan
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where an underlying right to refuse such a blood test is present, it would be improper to draw adverse inferences from failure of the accused to respond to a request for a blood test because the accused would thereby be penalized for exercising his rights to refuse the test.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Just as a defendant facing a court order to produce nontestimonial evidence^ such as a handwriting exemplar,] has no constitutional right to refuse the order, so Deering had no right to refuse the police request for a breathalyzer test. And just as the imposition of criminal contempt penalties does not transform the refusal to obey a court order regarding nontestimonial evidence into a testimonial communication with respect to the contempt charge, neither does the imposition by the State of Alaska of a criminal penalty for refusal to provide the state with the physical evidence of a breathalyzer test—beyond the civil penalty of license revocation clearly condoned in Neville—qualitatively transform the refusal into testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“just as the imposition of criminal contempt penalties does not transform the refusal to obey a court order regarding nontestimonial evidence into a testimonial communication with respect to the contempt charge ... neither does the imposition [by the state] of a criminal penalty for refusal to provide the state with the physical evidence of a breathalyzer ... qualitatively transform the refusal into testimony.”
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.