State v. Gruetzmacher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Historically, the pronouncement of sentence has never carried the finality that attaches to an acquittal. . . . [Under English common law, the] trial court's increase of a sentence, so long as it took place during the same term of court, was permitted. This practice was not thought to violate any double jeopardy principle. The common law is important in the present context, for our Double Jeopardy Clause was drafted with the common-law protections in mind. The double jeopardy considerations that bar reprosecution after an acquittal do not prohibit review of a sentence. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not provide the defendant with the right to know at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will turn out to be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 354 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson

2. “Once a criminal defendant begins serving a sentence, a court may, in certain situations, properly modify or correct the sentence. Modification to correct sentencing flaws runs afoul of the double jeopardy provisions when the amending court seeks to increase sentences already being served. [The Wisconsin Supreme Court] has stated that double jeopardy situations arise in modifying sentences when the sentence is enhanced or increased.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 354 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson

3. “the analytical touchstone of double jeopardy . . . , which may be influenced by many factors, such as the completion of the sentence, the passage of time, the pendency of an appeal, or the defendant's misconduct in obtaining sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 354 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson