Gillespie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The following cases and authorities are in harmony with our own decisions, as they hold or affirm the doctrine that in a criminal prosecution the unnecessary discharge of the jury, after it had been impaneled and sworn, without the consent of the defendant, operates as an acquittal. Commonwealth v. Fitz patrick (1888) 121 Pa. 109 , 15 Atl. 466 , 1 L. R. A. 451, 6 Am. St. Rep. 757 ; State v. Callendine (1859) 8 Iowa, 288 ; Hines v. State (1873) 24 Ohio St. 134 ; Helm v. State (1889) 66 Miss. 537 , 6 South. 322 ; State v. McKee (1830) 1 Bailey (S. C.) 651, 21 Am. Dec. 499 , and cases cited in notes; State v, Robinson (1894) 46 La. Ann. 769 , 15 South. 146 ; Robinson v. Commonwealth (1889) 88 Ky. 386 , 11 S. W. 210 ; People v. Cage (1874) 48 Cal. 323 , 17 Am. Rep. 436 ; Ex parte Clement (1873) 50 Ala. 459 ; Bell v. State (1870) 44 Ala. 393 ; Ex parte Maxwell (1876) 11 Nev. 428 ; Whitmore v. State (1884) 43 Ark. 271 ; Ward v. State (1839) 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 253; O’Brian v. Commonwealth (1872) 9 Bush (Ky.) 333 , 15 Am. Rep. 715 ; State v. Richardson (1896), 47 S. C. 166, 25 S. E. 220 , 35 L. R. A. 238; Hilands v. Commonwealth (1887) 114 Pa. 372 , 6 Atl. 267 ; State v. Sommers (1895) 60 Minn. 90 , 61 N. W. 907 ; Scrieber v. Clapp (1903) 13 Okla. 215 , 74 Pac. 316 ; People v. Dolan (1883) 51 Mich. 610 , 17 N. W. 78 ; Ex parte Tice (1897) 32 Ore. 179 , 49 Pac. 1038 ; State v. Steeves (1896) 29 Ore. 85 , 43 Pac. 947 ; People v. Taylor (1898) 117 Mich. 583 , 76 N. W. 158 ; Commonwealth ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Okla. Crim. 76 - Loyd v. State

2. “"Under the circumstances, the act of the trial court in removing the juror in question operated, in effect, to break down and destroy the jury into whose hands appellant had been given in charge and from which body, in the absence of any absolute or legal necessity arising, he was entitled to have a verdict returned. That, in view of the law of this State, as settled by our decisions, he, under the facts, incurred or was subjected to the jeopardy contemplated or meant by the constitutional provision in question, is certainly evident, and there is no room for controversy to the contrary. The jeopardy contemplated, our decisions affirm, attaches from the very moment the trial is begun, and the trial is deemed to have commenced at the time the jury is impaneled. It follows, therefore, that appellant was as actually in jeopardy when the jury was discharged as he would have been had the introduction of the evidence been completed at that time. That no legal necessity whatever is shown to have existed for the discharge of the jury over appellant's objections, is certainly manifest, and this question might be said to merit no further consideration. If, under the circumstances in this case, it could be affirmed that such a legal necessity for the discharge of the jury without appellant's consent is shown to have arisen, then it would be an easy matter for a prosecuting attorney, in the midst of a criminal trial, to create a necessity for the discharge of the jury on the ground that t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maddox v. State

3. “Whenever a person shall have been given in charge, on a legal indictment, to a regular jury, and that jury unnecessarily discharged, he has been once put in jeopardy, and the discharge is equivalent to a verdict of acquittal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Slack v. Grigsby