Briggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If an appellate court remands a criminal case to a lower court in order that the lower court may pronounce the proper judgment or sentence, or conduct a new trial, and if there is a conviction following this new trial, the lower court may impose any sentence authorized by law to be imposed as punishment for the offense. However, it may not impose a sentence more severe than the sentence previously imposed for the offense unless: (1) The reasons for the increased sentence affirmatively appear; (2) The reasons are based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the original sentence was imposed; and (3) The factual data upon which the increased sentence is based appears as a part of the record.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Willey v. State · Jones v. State

2. “In order to assure the absence of such a motivation, we have concluded that whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear. Those reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. And the factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made part of the record, so that the constitutional legitimacy of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal. Pearce, supra, 395 U.S. at 726 , 89 S.Ct. at 2081 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. State · Davis v. State

3. “"In Henry [v. State, 273 Md. 131 , 328 A.2d 293 (1974)], we recognized that whereas bald accusations of prior criminal conduct are not to be considered by a sentencing judge, reliable evidence concerning the details or surrounding circumstances of such conduct ordinarily may be taken into account; while there may be exceptions, this is generally permitted even if the defendant at the time of sentencing remained untried for the prior conduct or had been acquitted of the charges involving that conduct. Id. at 147-48 , 328 A.2d at 303 . Manifestly, this would encompass conduct resulting in a conviction from which, at the time of sentencing in the case involving later criminal conduct, there was an appeal pending from a conviction involving earlier misconduct.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stanton v. State