State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “does not implicate the come concern of.... Blakely.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kessee v. Mendoza-Powers · State v. Cross

2. “intimately related to [the] prior conviction”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Wash. 2d 646 - State v. Mutch · State v. Rudolph

3. “[W]e join the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in rejecting the argument that the prior[-]conviction exception applies only when the prior conviction and facts related thereto may be determined with ease and/or without challenge. See [United States v.] Santiago, 268 F.3d [151,] 156 [(2nd Cir.2001)] ("While the Almendarez-Torres exception to the Apprendi rule . . . typically involves a relatively uncontested record, this is by no means always the case. The determination of `the fact of a prior conviction' implicitly entails many subsidiary findings, not the least of which is that the defendant [presently] being sentenced is the same defendant who . . . was convicted of those prior offenses, a fact that could be quite controversial indeed." (emphasis added) (emphasis omitted)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Rudolph