20 Wash. App. 527 - State v. McNeil’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2020
24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 87 Wash. 2d 870 - State v. Striker · 89 Wash. 2d 788 - State v. MacK · 85 Wash. 2d 29 - State v. Williams · 87 Wash. 2d 612 - State v. Cummings · State v. Deloria
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct, whether the purpose in so doing is to hedge against the risk of an unsympathetic jury at the first trial, to place a `hold' upon a person after he has been sentenced to imprisonment, or simply to harass by multiplicity of trials.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lee · State v. Harris““If the time frames of CrR 3.3 [the speedy trial rule] are not met, the offense charged, along with any other offense required to be joined with that offense, shall be absolutely discharged. [Our insertion.] “To deny Mr. McNeil’s motion to dismiss charges which would have been joined with charges earlier dismissed because he was denied a speedy trial under CrR 3.3 allows the prosecutor to circumvent the intent of the rules and the strict construction given to them by our courts. “Here the prosecutor knew or should have known of the offenses alleged in the second information at the time he filed the initial charges. . “Under these circumstances, we cannot allow the prosecutor to do indirectly what the lack of speedy trial prevented him from doing directly. Piecemeal prosecutions such as this promote circumvention of the intent of the speedy trial rules and the related concepts of fundamental fairness contained in joinder and severance principles.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pruett v. State · State v. Tharp“'based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal incident’ from the time the defendant is held to answer any charge with respect to that conduct or episode.” We said in Harris: The policy behind the Peterson rule is similar to the policy behind mandatory joinder. Joinder principles are designed to protect defendants from”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.