Beem v. McKune’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Due Process Clause only requires that aggravating sentencing factors be proven at trial. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 481-82 , 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). As the Supreme Court has stated, ‘[ojtlrer than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Id. at 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (emphasis added); see also Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565 , 122 S. Ct. 2406, 2418 , 153 L. Ed. 2d 524 (2002) (‘[Ojnce the jury finds all those facts [required for the maximum sentence], Apprendi says that tire defendant has been convicted of the crime; the Fifth and Sixth Amendments have been observed; and the Government has been authorized to impose any sentence below the maximum.’). In applying this constitutional rule, ‘the relevant inquiry is one not of form, but of effect — does the required finding expose the defendant to a greater punishment tiran that authorized by tire jury’s guilty verdict?’ Id. at 494, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). With respect to petitioners’ cases, tire answer is plainly no. Accordingly, the Kansas state courts’ application of the Carmichael remedy comported with due process.” 317 F.3d at 1182 .”

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

2. ““We must next consider whether tire Kansas state courts committed constitutional error in determining the appropriate sentences for general sex offenses by reference to tire allowable penalty for aggravated incest. We acknowledge that, in determining whether the petitioners were entitled to the Carmichael remedy, the Kansas state courts were required to determine whether petitioners met the kinship requirement set forth in tire aggravated incest statute, [K.S.A.] 21-3603. Crucial to our constitutional analysis, however, is tire fact that the Carmichael remedy resulted in a reduction to petitioners’ sentences.” 317 F.3d at 1181 .”

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