Garfias, Christopher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[1] whether offenses are in the same statutory section; [2] whether the offenses are phrased in the alternative; [3] whether the offenses are named similarly; [4] whether the offenses have common punishment ranges; [5] whether the offenses have a common focus; [6] whether the common focus tends to • indicate a single instance of conduct; [7] whether the elements that differ between the two offenses can be considered the same under an imputed theory of liability that would result in the offenses being considered the same under BlocJcburger; and [8] whether there is legislative history containing an articulation of an intent to treat the offenses as the same or different for double jeopardy purposes.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jared Tyrell Stinecipher v. State · Shelby, John Richard

2. “[A] ‘units’ analysis is employed when the offenses are alternative means of committing the same statutory offense.”); Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aekins v. State · Benson, Yusulf Shaheed

3. “The starting point of an "elements” analysis in the multiple-punishments context is the Bloekburger test, used to determine whether each of the offenses requires proof of an element that the other does not. In doing so, courts must focus on the elements alleged in the charging instrument — not on the offense as defined in the Penal Code. Under this so-called cognate-pleadings approach, double-jeopardy challenges can be made even against offenses that have different statutory elements, if the same facts required to convict are alleged in the indictment. But as we indicated in our prior opinion, the Bloekburger test is only a starting point — it is a rule of statutory construction, not the exclusive indicator of a double-jeopardy violation. The Bloekburger test cannot allow two punishments for a single course of conduct when the Legislature intended to authorize only one.”

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