State v. Bracht’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Since the inception of this Court, it has from time to time reversed a trial court for errors committed against a criminal defendant which were found to be prejudicial. Yet one must look long and hard to find a case where the remand was designated to be to another judge rather than the original trial court which committed the error. We have assumed that the trial court will correct its original error and not retaliate against the defendant who obtained the reversal from this Court. What then is the justification for continuing on with this procedure and yet automatically ordering a remand to another judge where the error was made by the prosecutor, not the trial court, and not even considered by the trial court? The cases cited above hold that the defendant must show “unusual circumstances” or some other valid reason in order to require remand for resentenc-ing by a different judge. [U.S. v.] Sharp, 941 F.2d [811] at 817 [9th Cir.1991]; [U.S. v.] Heubel, 864 F.2d [1104] at 1113 [3d Cir.1989]. Bracht makes no claim of bias or reliance on impermissible factors by the trial court and the majority explicitly finds there is none. Therefore Bracht has failed to demonstrate any circumstances which require a different judge to conduct his resen-tencing.”

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

2. “(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”

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

3. “The ultimate relief to which petitioner is entitled we leave to the discretion of the state court, which is in a better position to decide whether the circumstances of this case require only that there be specific performance of the agreement on the plea, in which case petitioner should be resentenced by a different judge, or whether, in the view of the state court, the circumstances require granting the relief sought by petitioner!].]”

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