Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 889 F.2d 819 - Medeiros v. Shimoda

Medeiros v. Shimoda’s Empirical Analysis

889 F.2d 819 · 1989

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
3
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably United States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval (1990), United States v. Nelson (1998)

46 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

45019891990200020102020decided

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 · Batson v. Kentucky · Wong Sun v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Townsend v. Sain

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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'product of a rational intellect and a free will.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]fter an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. He can never get the cat back in the bag. The secret is out for good. In such a sense, a later confession always may be looked upon as fruit of the first. But this Court has never gone so far as to hold that making a confession under circumstances which preclude its use, perpetually disables the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will, so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period.... [T]he admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.”
    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.