United States v. Jose’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We pause to consider the practical implications of our decision and to provide the district courts with some guidance. Prosecutors should not be discouraged from charging defendants with greater and lesser included offenses in separate counts under the same indictment. Indeed, if they fail to try the lesser and greater included offenses together in one trial, they may not, consistently with the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause, later try the defendant for the related offense in a subsequent trial under a separate indictment. See, e.g., Brown [ v. Ohio ], 432 U.S. [161,] 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)]. Although "[a] jury is generally instructed not to return a verdict on a lesser included offense once it has found the defendant guilty of the greater offense," Rutledge, 517 U.S. at 306 n. 16, 116 S.Ct. 1241 , it is entirely appropriate for a judge to instruct a jury to render a verdict on a greater offense and its lesser included predicates. Should a jury find a defendant guilty of both the greater and lesser included offenses within the same indictment, Rutledge counsels that the [trial] court not enter a final judgment of conviction on both offenses, unless Congress [or the legislature] clearly indicates that it intended to allow multiple punishments. Id. at 301-03 , 116 S.Ct. 1241 . Even if the [trial] court does not impose sentence on the lesser included offenses, as was the case here, the bare existence of the other convictions may have potentially ad”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Turner · State v. Turner

2. “While the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial after reversal of a conviction, it does bar a successive trial on an offense not charged in the original in dictment once jeopardy has already terminated on, what is for double jeopardy purposes, the “same offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 822 F. Supp. 2d 1089 - United States v. Elk-Booth

3. “[F]ederal appellate courts appear to have uniformly concluded that they may direct the entry of judgment for a lesser included offense when a conviction for a greater offense is reversed on grounds that affect only the greater offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Turner