State v. Rudolph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) existing case law does not give Rudolph the right to have a jury decide whether he is the same defendant who committed the crimes resulting in his prior convictions used as strike offenses to establish his persistent offender status under the POAA and, thus, subject him to life imprisonment without parole for his new crime; (2) identity is a fact so “intimately related to [the] prior conviction,” under [State v. ]Jones[, 159 Wn.2d 231 , 149 P.3d 636 (2006)], as to be virtually inseparable from the finding of the existence of a prior conviction; (3) the Almendarez-Torres fact-of-the-prior-conviction exception to the Apprendi/Blakely jury-trial requirement necessarily includes identity; and (4) thus, Apprendi and Blakely do not require a jury to decide the identity component of the fact of a prior conviction. Therefore, the sentencing court may, as it did here, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrator of the present crime is the same person as the perpetrator of a prior crime used as a strike offense for POAA sentencing purposes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McKague · State v. McKAGUE

2. “is irrelevant. The Blakely Court outright rejected the interpretation of Apprendi that a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McKAGUE

3. “542 U.S. at 306 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . The Court stated that this approach would lead to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McKAGUE