Commonwealth v. Leap’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The prosecution has an obligation to the Commonwealth to properly charge and convict persons guilty of criminal conduct as defined in our Kentucky Statutes. Adding an additional felony charge, which was appropriate under the facts, in order to support the charge of PFO, was its job; otherwise the addition of the PFO charge would not be supportable. This is not evidence of a “vindictive motive,” nor is the timing of the addition. The first mistrial was in February 2002 and the retrial was ordered for May 8, 2002. Adding the charge on March 21, 2002, was appropriate and even necessary as anything later would have put the scheduled trial, or additional indictment, at risk. Thus, the timing here is not evidence of vindictiveness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Perry

2. “Given the severity of such a presumption, ... which may operate in the absence of any proof of an improper motive and thus may block a legitimate response to criminal conduct,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yates v. Commonwealth

3. “only in cases in which a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yates v. Commonwealth