Mitchell v. Youell’s Empirical Analysis
130 F.2d 880 · 1942
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably MacKenna v. Ellis (1961), Jones v. Cunningham (1963)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Glasser v. United States · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Betts v. Brady · Smith v. O'Grady · In re Bonner
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under these circumstances, we do not think that it can be said that the petitioner has been accorded due process of law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. While he has had the outward form of a trial, he has been denied the opportunity of having his defense really presented. The trial and sentence of the state court must accordingly be held for naught. Powell v. Alabama, supra; Smith v. O'Grady, supra; Boyd v. O'Grady, supra. This does not mean, however, that petitioner may escape further punishment under the bill of indictment returned against him. While the conviction and sentence under the bill must be held to be void and the prisoner released from further service of the sentence, he will be subject to arrest and trial under the indictment. The defense of prior jeopardy will not protect him, for in holding that the trial was a nullity, we hold that he has not been in jeopardy under the charge. It is settled that an accused is not put in jeopardy by a void judgment of conviction, and that upon his discharge thereunder he may be again arrested and prosecuted. Bryant v. United States, 8 Cir. 214 F. 51 ; Ogle v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 219 , 63 S.W. 1009 , 96 Am. St. Rep. 860 and note at page 870; State v. Bates, 22 Utah 65 , 61 P. 905 , 83 Am. St. Rep. 768 ; Marshall v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 531 , 166 S.W. 722 , L.R.A. 1915A, 526 and note; 16 C.J. p. 258; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 266, p. 402. In directing the release of the petitioner from the penitenti”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ruben v. Welch · Slack v. Grigsby“it gives color to the charge that he has not had the fair trial which the Constitution contemplates.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Cunningham
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.