United States v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
972 F.2d 1100 · 1992
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Hendricks v. Vasquez (1992), Whittlesey v. State (1995)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Massiah v. United States · McNeil v. Wisconsin · Michigan v. Jackson
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhere the unique facts of this case fall outside the facts of the Moulton line of cases, I conclude that balancing the narrow application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the importance of allowing the authorities to initiate and pursue investigations compels the conclusion that once the case against defendant had been dismissed and she was discharged by the district court her Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not extend indefinitely to [the DEA agent’s] questioning of defendant during his separate investigation. Accordingly, ... I would affirm the trial court’s ruling that the evidence of defendant’s statements did not warrant suppression.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“some degree of coordination between state and federal authorities, but not necessarily a 'collusion to deprive Mr. Martinez of his rights.' " This is incorrect. We remanded for a determination of whether the state-federal cooperation was of such a nature and extent as to "amount to collusion to circumvent Martinez's Sixth Amendment rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sixth Amendment principles require that we impute the State's knowledge from one state actor to another. For the Sixth Amendment concerns the confrontation between the State and the individual. One set of state actors (the police) may not claim ignorance of defendants’ unequivocal request for counsel to another state actor (the court).”). 4 . Agent Gonzalez asked questions about the defendants' own immigration status, their transporting of the other illegal immigrants to Washington state and the financial arrangements for the trip, the defendants' prior experience with transporting illegal immigrants, their knowledge of the immigration status of the individuals they were transporting, what had happened regarding Hernandez's inability to pay, whether Hernandez had been forced to remain in the van against his will, what statements the defendants had made to Hernandez, and whether Hernandez had been kidnaped for ransom. Both defendants waived their Miranda rights and answered Gonzalez’s questions. 5 . The government points out that this note was handwritten, but the significance of this fact is not apparent. In his testimony, Agent Gonzalez denied that any promise of federal prosecution was made. ‘ 6 . The second exception applies when “the government breach[es] its 'affirmative obligation not to act in a manner that circumvents and thereby dilutes the protection afforded by the right to counsel.'”
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.