7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Martinez-Larraga.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Martinez-Larraga Anchor | green | “we, and other circuits, have continued to recognize this 'open the door' or 'reply' exception to doyle, while likewise recognizing that it does not permit the prosecution to argue that the jury should infer the defendant's guilt directly from his post arrest silence.” | 4 |
| 2 | Wainwright v. Greenfield | green | “doyle and subsequent cases have thus made clear that breaching the implied assurance of the miranda warnings is an affront to the fundamental fairness that the due process clause requires.” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. George Evans Harp, Edwin R. Breaux, Jean Orsini, Willard Joseph Martin, Don Garriga Chapman and Elvin Edsel Haddock | green | “because the prosecutor's comments struck at the jugular of their story, those remarks cannot be classified as harmless.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Jones | green | “t is an abuse of discretion to rely on erroneous conclusions of law.” | 4 |
| 5 | United States v. Jose Escalante-Reyes | green | “the focus of plain error review should be whether the severity of the error's harm demands reversal . . . .” | 4 |
| 6 | United States v. George Evans Harp, Edwin R. Breaux, Jean Orsini, Willard Joseph Martin, Don Garriga Chapman and Elvin Edsel Haddock | green | “t is fundamentally unfair to allow an arrested person's silence following miranda warnings to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Vicente Meneses-Davila | green | “even 38 case: 12-40472 document: 00512475113 page: 39 date filed: 12/18/2013 no. 12-40472 c/w no. 12-40477 discounting the comments that might be claimed to be defense invited, however, the prosecutor's other references mandate reversal.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.