Case Citator › Wilson v. United States

Wilson v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
162 U.S. 613
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Treatment dates
1966
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 29 flagged citations have been read. Miranda v. Arizona displaced Wilson v. United States's rule that a voluntary statement could be admitted without a warning when the accused is subjected to custodial interrogation, as listed below.
More on how this was screened

United States v. Turzynski later identified this conflict with Wilson. Later courts continued to apply Wilson's separate rules about inferences from recently stolen property and false explanations.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

29 later cases cite Wilson v. United States; 29 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wilson v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • Miranda required warnings before custodial interrogation, displacing Wilson's rule that a voluntary statement could be admitted without a warning in that setting.

    Miranda v. Arizona · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.4 As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wilson v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace