404 So. 2d 111 - Stevenson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In United States v. Bobo, [ 586 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.1978) ], the U.S. Fifth Circuit in referring to the former jeopardy rule stated: “‘By contrast, where the defendant moves for a mistrial or consents to its declaration, ordinarily the double jeopardy clause does not bar his retrial. United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 93 , 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2195 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978); Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23, 32 , 97 S.Ct. 2141, 2147 , 53 L.Ed.2d 80 (1977); United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 557 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion); United States v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 1311, 1317 (5th Cir.1978).’ “The theory for applying this exception in federal cases is that a defendant who moves for a mistrial consents to a termination of the present trial and impliedly consents to a retrial. United States v. Brooks [ 599 F.2d 943 (10th Cir. 1979) ]. The defendant, though he has a ‘valued right’ to a speedy trial and against multiple prosecutions, has a comparable right to seek or suggest a termination of the present trial, to take the case from a jury when circumstances occur that might prejudice his case. United States v. Dinitz, [ 424 U.S. 600 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 (1976)]. The evils that the double jeopardy bar seeks to prevent, therefore, vanish when the defendant induces the dismissal of the existing prosecution. “We would point out that all double jeopardy eases should be carefully examined to assure protection of defendants’ rights. However, defendants should not be all”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sullivan