State v. Stubblefield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), the Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. In both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution contexts, the double jeopardy bar applies if the two offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot survive the “Blockburger” test. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S. Ct. 2849 , 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993). . . . In other words, the Blockburger , or “same-elements,” test asks whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other. Id. If not, they are the same offense and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution. Id.; Blockburger v. United States, supra. If so, they are not the same offense and double jeopardy is not a bar to additional punishment or successive prosecution. U.S. v. Dixon, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 5 Neb. Ct. App. 653 - State v. Schmidt