Bradley v. Meachum’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 338 · 1990
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Bui v. DiPaolo (1999), Bobo v. Kolb (1992)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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 Doyle v. Ohio · Darden v. Wainwright · Ake v. Oklahoma · Oregon v. Elstad · Harris v. Reed
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court finds in this case that the defendant’s failure to answer the few questions posed by Agent Blanco in the midst of answering other questions was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent. The defendant in this case answered questions before and after the several questions that he didn’t respond to. Under these circumstances, this is simply not the type of unambiguous statement of a right to remain silent. I think it is also of note that the question asked by Agent Krushahl [sic] at the courthouse the following day after the defendant’s arrest was in fact one of the questions that he had responded to during Agent Blanco’s questioning, both in the ear and the station, that question being who the cocaine belonged to. The defendant had answered that question or responded, I should say, to that question on both occasions, indicating that you know who it is that the cocaine belongs to. Assessing all of the testimony, ... I don’t think that the simple failure to answer the third question would have constituted, under the Davis and Singletary decisions, an invocation of the right to remain silent under any circumstances. In sum, the court concludes that the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent and the statements were properly admitted at trial. I should note that there was an argument made that the agents’ assessment of the defendant as being a wise guy or somehow flip during their questioning of him somehow translated it as the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Bradley cannot be said to have invoked his fifth amendment right regarding his willingness to discuss his involvement in the crime because, in the same breath, he denied any involvement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court should examine 'the entire context in which the claimant spoke.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bobo v. Kolb
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.